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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context: that the tool returns IDs available to the current API key and that it serves as a prerequisite for creating posts. This provides behavioral insight beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences long, efficiently conveying purpose and usage. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('List workspace IDs') and immediately provides contextual usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the workflow context (prerequisite for post creation) and the relationship to the workspace_id parameter. However, it does not describe the return format or pagination, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make this acceptable.

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 schema covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions, but the description adds critical guidance for the workspace_id parameter: 'Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the id of the matching workspace.' This prevents a common misuse and adds meaning beyond the schema. The query and brand_id parameters are briefly mentioned in the schema but not elaborated in the description, which is acceptable given their optional nature.

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 the tool lists workspace IDs available to the API key. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workspace IDs'), and distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by targeting workspaces. The addition of the use case ('Call this before creating posts') further clarifies its role.

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 explicitly recommends calling this tool before creating posts when the user has multiple workspaces, and instructs how to use the result ('pass the chosen id as workspace_id'). While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the sibling tools are for different entities, so the guidance is clear and actionable.

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