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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered without help from the description. The description adds only that teams carry UUIDs and names; it does not say whether results are paginated or complete. With annotations and an output schema present, the lower bar is met.

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?

One purpose sentence followed by two tightly scoped bullets; nothing is repeated and the usage triggers are front-loaded. Every line 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?

For a zero-param read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose and the two realistic invocation triggers. The only minor gap is the absence of any statement about result size or pagination, which is not covered elsewhere.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to compensate for, and it correctly implies no filtering input is available.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Get a list of the teams available in the account'), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as list-account-team-members or get-account-info, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two concrete when-to-use scenarios are spelled out: needing a team UUID to filter list-documents, and needing to know which teams exist before referring to them by name. No exclusions or explicit alternatives are named (e.g. 'for membership, use list-account-team-members'), which keeps it at 4.

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