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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-annotation behavior: the scoping consequence that workspaceId becomes required downstream, and the requirement to prompt the user instead of auto-selecting. It doesn't describe ordering or empty-account behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the sequencing rule and the user-consultation rule. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is restated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool, the description supplies the only things that matter: when to call it, what the output identifies, and how to act on multiple results.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add forward-looking context about the workspaceId parameter used by sibling tools, which is useful even though this tool itself takes nothing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every workspace') plus the return payload ('with its id and the caller's role'), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like list_accounts or list_boards without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says to call it FIRST when more than one workspace may exist, explains why (every other tool takes an optional workspaceId that becomes required), and even prescribes the interaction pattern of asking the user rather than guessing. That is when-to-use, why, and how, all stated.

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