whodb_platform_user_owned_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral detail that the workspace argument is per-call only and does not change defaults, which is real context beyond the annotations. It leaves the return shape and any pagination/limit behavior undisclosed.

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 tightly worded sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the targeting caveat second. Nothing is padding, though the second sentence duplicates what the schema's workspace description already states.

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 read-only, fully schema-documented list tool with readOnly/idempotent annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scoping and targeting adequately. The residual gaps are minor: no mention of result volume, pagination, or how ownership is determined.

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 100%, so every parameter including the nested workspace object is already documented, and the description's workspace sentence largely restates that. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (List) and resource (resources owned by one organization member), and the 'owned by one member' scope naturally distinguishes it from org- or project-wide siblings such as whodb_platform_org_resources. It stops short of naming any alternative tool, so an agent must infer the sibling routing on its own.

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?

'for example before removing them' supplies a concrete when-to-use trigger, which is more than most definitions offer. However, there is no when-not guidance, no statement about prerequisites beyond what the schema says, and no named alternative for adjacent questions like per-user access or org-level lists.

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