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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value: it explains the identity model ('acting as its person') and, critically, which entries are read-write versus read-only and with what they share pages. That access-level detail is not in any structured field.

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, both carrying information, with the resource and identity framing front-loaded. The first sentence is dense with stacked parentheticals, which makes it slightly harder to parse, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already declaring the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces: what the list contains, how entries differ by permission, and how to consume the handles. It stops short of describing ordering or scale limits, but nothing essential is absent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does mention passing a handle as 'workspace' to other tools, but that pertains to downstream calls rather than this tool's own inputs, so no additional param semantics apply here.

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 specifies the resource (workspaces reachable by this key) and enumerates the categories returned (this one, member workspaces, page-sharing workspaces), which clearly distinguishes it from page/file siblings like list_pages or list_files. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list', phrased as a fragment, which keeps it just below a 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 practical workflow guidance — 'Pass one's handle as workspace to any tool to act there' — telling the agent what to do with the result. It does not name exclusions or alternate tools, but there is no obvious sibling alternative for enumerating workspaces, so context is clear without them.

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