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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by stating the result is scoped to the calling user's memberships and that teamId feeds the recording-filter tools, which is non-obvious cross-tool behavior.

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 compact sentences: scope first, then example intents and the downstream link. The bilingual example phrasing is slightly redundant but earns its place by anchoring natural-language triggers.

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 no parameters, an output schema, and full annotations, very little is left to explain. The description covers scope, filter-linkage, and trigger vocabulary; only an explicit statement of the no-argument / full-list behavior and any auth or pagination nuance is absent.

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 applies and no parameter explanation is required. The mention of teamId is about output/follow-up usage rather than an input, so it does not compensate for anything missing.

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 ("Lists the Kalima teams the user belongs to") and enumerates the returned fields (role, teamId, organizationId), which distinguishes it from list_organizations and list_workspaces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, 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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasings ("which teams am I on", "in welchen Teams bin ich") that make the intended usage unambiguous, and notes the resulting id is consumed by the recording tools, which points to the follow-up call. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is provided.

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