list_input_guardrail_workspace_exclusions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: required API key with organisation_exclusions.list scope, Enterprise gating, and a concrete failure mode (403 on non-Enterprise plans). This is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then usage, then prerequisites and failure mode. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers auth scope, gating, failure mode, and the scoping exclusion. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the single organisation_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only adds a mild scoping implication ('for one organisation'), so baseline 3 is appropriate — the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 with precise scope: listing workspaces excluded from organisation-wide input guardrails for a single organisation. It distinguishes itself from the output-guardrail counterpart and from the default guardrail list ('does not return the organisation's default guardrail list'), so an agent can separate it from neighbours like get_organisation_defaults and list_output_guardrail_workspace_exclusions.

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 names the contexts to use it in ('audit exceptions', 'establish the current state before the matching update tool') and states a when-not condition (it does not return the organisation's default guardrail list). The 'matching update tool' phrasing points to update_input_guardrail_workspace_exclusions without leaving the agent to guess.

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