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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context that the output includes permissions granted for each team, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe return format, pagination, or any special behavior. Given the annotations handle the core safety aspects, this is a 3 – it adds some value but not extensive behavioral detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary function first, then adds a usage tip. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. The structure is ideal for an agent scanning descriptions quickly.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (teams and permissions) and when to use it. There is no output schema, but the description's mention of permissions gives enough context. Minor gaps include lack of explicit mention of ordering or error behavior, but these are not critical for a simple list operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, with no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. It correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs, which is appropriate.

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 formcarry teams accessible to this connection and includes permissions. It specifies the resource (teams) and the action (list), and it distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (like list_forms) by focusing on teams. The additional note about calling it first when unsure which team a form belongs to reinforces its specific purpose.

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 an explicit usage scenario: 'Call first when you are not sure which team a form belongs to.' This gives clear guidance on when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the tool is unique among siblings and the context is sufficient for an agent to decide. A minor gap is the lack of a when-not clause.

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