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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the schema: id, slug and name are interchangeable as identifiers. It says nothing about scope (only teams the caller belongs to), ordering, or size, which is what would push this higher.

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 sentences, no filler: the first front-loads the when-to-use motivation, the second describes what comes back and the identifier affordance. Every clause earns its place.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the exact return shape, the description only needs to supply purpose, routing and identifier semantics, which it largely does. The remaining gap is the `kind` filter — an agent might not realize it can restrict to teams or projects without reading the schema.

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% and the single `kind` parameter has its enum values and default documented inline, so the schema carries the load. The description indirectly hints at the teams/projects distinction through its framing but never explains `kind` or that 'all' is the default, so it adds little parameter meaning 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?

The description makes clear this returns the set of teams and projects the caller is a member of, and that each item carries id, slug, name, role, description and aliases. The specific verb ('list') lives only in the title, so the description alone reads more like a usage note than a statement of purpose, but an agent can still tell exactly what resource it gets back and how it differs from siblings like list_memories or list_topics.

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?

It names the exact downstream consumers (search_memories's teams/team/project arguments and save_memory's filing targets) and gives the condition that selects this tool: obtaining a valid identifier before calling them. This is an explicit when-to-use rule tied to named siblings, which is the strongest form of routing guidance.

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