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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the ordering behavior (newest first) and scoping ('your'), but says nothing about the two response shapes (bare array vs {items, next_cursor, limit}) which is the genuinely surprising behavior here.

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?

A single short sentence with the key ordering fact front-loaded and no filler. Nothing extraneous and nothing bloated.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only list tool whose schema fully documents pagination and whose annotations cover safety, the description plus structured fields are sufficient to call it correctly. The only gap is that the unusual legacy-vs-paginated response duality is left entirely to 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 both optional parameters (limit, cursor) carry detailed inline docs including the pagination mode switch. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('list your team_assignment rows') and adds an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), which is real information beyond the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from team_assignment_read or the other team_assignment_* siblings, but the list-vs-read distinction is inferable.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'list'; there is no statement of when to use this versus team_assignment_read, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. An agent can guess correctly, but nothing is explicit.

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