list_integration_workspaces

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds return structure details (ids, names, enabled state, limits) and an important behavioral constraint: 'Enterprise-gated. Returns 403 on non-Enterprise Portkey plans.' No contradictions.

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?

Five focused sentences with no waste. The main action and output are front-loaded, followed by use cases, return fields, and access constraints. 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?

The description covers purpose, use cases, return fields, and access constraints. With an output schema present, it's not necessary to detail every return field, but the summary is sufficient. Pagination is implied by parameters but not explicitly described in the description, which is a minor gap.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters (slug, current_page, page_size) with basic descriptions. The MCP description doesn't add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states 'List workspaces that can use an integration, with their limits,' specifying the verb (list) and resource (workspaces tied to an integration). It distinguishes from siblings like list_integrations and list_workspaces by focusing on integration-workspace associations.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases: 'Use this to audit access or confirm per-workspace cost and rate settings.' It also notes enterprise gating and error codes, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives. Clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use.

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