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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that chats include DMs and group chats, but provides no additional behavioral context such as authentication needs, ordering, or pagination.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It conveys the essential information efficiently.

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 list operation with one optional, fully documented parameter and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists.

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 fully describes the only parameter (limit) with default value, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema handles all parameter semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'Lists Microsoft Teams chats' and specifies the scope as 'direct messages and group chats', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like teams_list_channels and teams_list_teams.

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 implies the tool is for listing Teams chats but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., teams_read_chat_messages, teams_search_messages) nor any exclusions. Context is provided, but guidance is only implicit.

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