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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with both by framing results as account-scoped. Beyond that, it discloses the output shape (one team per line with id, name, and your role), which is real added value since no output schema exists. It doesn't cover ordering, empty-account behavior, or pagination, but for a zero-parameter read that is minor.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then appends the return format. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the only thing the structured fields can't: what comes back. Annotations handle the safety profile, and there are no inputs to explain, so nothing material is missing.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required, keeping the call signature unambiguous.

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 (list) and resource (teams) with a clear scope: teams this account is a member of, not all teams. It also previews the returned fields (id, name, role), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like team_return or team_share, which also touch 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this to discover team ids and its own role before calling team_share or team_return. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of the team_* alternatives.

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