list_integration_workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds that it returns total plus specific fields (ids, names, enabled state, usage limits, rate limits), and enterprise restriction with 403. No contradiction.

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 covering purpose, use case, and return value plus constraints. No fluff, front-loaded with main action. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given output schema exists, description covers return fields, enterprise gating, and error condition. Adequate for a paginated list tool with read-only behavior.

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?

All 3 parameters are described in the schema (slug, page_size, current_page) with 100% coverage. Description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'List workspaces that can use an integration, with their limits.' Verb+resource is specific. Differentiates from siblings like list_mcp_integration_workspaces by focusing on integrations (not MCP). Also adds audit use case.

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 states when to use ('audit access or confirm per-workspace cost and rate settings'). Also notes Enterprise-gating and 403 error. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but clear enough.

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