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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: revocation blocks search and downloads even with an existing session, the initial grant needs owner session with origin/CSRF checks, org API keys stay within existing grants, and responses are 'private, no-store'. Some of this (sharing semantics) is tangential to a list operation, but the caching and revocation disclosures are genuinely useful.

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 single-sentence purpose is front-loaded, but the bulk of the paragraph is a meandering discussion of sharing grants, revocation, and CSRF rules that reads like documentation for share/publish tools rather than a simple list operation. Much of it does not earn its place for this read-only tool.

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 output schema the description should cover return behavior, and it does note no-store caching, but it omits pagination shape and what a 'base' entry contains. It over-explains access rules while under-explaining the actual listing semantics and its relationship to sibling list operations.

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%, so both parameters (organization_id, after cursor) are already documented, including the 'do not construct cursors' note. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a verb and resource ('List bases'), but it says 'in your personal account' while the tool name/title frame it as team-scoped, leaving the actual scope ambiguous. It also never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_bases or team_list_collections, so an agent must guess which listing tool to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative named, despite several near-identical siblings (list_bases, team_list_collections). The only routing hint lives in the schema's organization_id description ('from list_knowledge_teams'), not in the tool description.

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