Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note beyond that: hosted world IDs live in a different namespace from Worldstream liveWorldIds. It says nothing about result size, pagination, or empty-workspace behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the scoping constraint plus the ID-namespace warning are front-loaded where an agent will see them.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the ID-namespace caveat that could otherwise cause an agent to misuse the returned IDs. It omits any indication of return shape or whether the list is exhaustive, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema does not explain workspaceId at all. The description partially compensates by tying the listing to the 'active workspace', implying what the ID should be, but it does not state the accepted format or what happens if a non-active workspace ID is supplied.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource (list hosted sites/worlds in the active workspace) and adds the reason it exists (resolving a world title before editing). It does not name a sibling tool to differentiate from (e.g. get_hosted_world, list_world_experiences), so it falls short of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear use context — call this to resolve a world title before editing — which is more than implied usage. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use conditions, such as when get_hosted_world or list_world_experiences is the better call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.