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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the credentials are used only for this call and never stored, plus the owner/admin permission gate — meaningful context beyond the annotations. It stops short of noting rate limits or failure modes of the external source call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and ending with the security reassurance. The clause 'so your human can choose which one to bring across' earns its place by explaining intent, though it is slightly chatty.

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 only two parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, prerequisites, and credential handling. The remaining gap is that it never sketches the shape of the returned targets (fields, pagination), which the agent must infer.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented structurally. The description's only added guidance is the provenance of the auth object ('the auth values you collected from them'), which the schema already states as authFields from list_import_sources; it adds no new syntax or format detail.

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/projects/workspaces visible at the source given credentials), and frames its role in a larger flow. It is clearly distinct from sibling list_import_sources, which enumerates sources rather than targets within a source.

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?

Implies the correct sequence by telling the agent to pass 'the auth values you collected from them', pointing back to list_import_sources, and states a concrete prerequisite ('Owner or admin only'). It does not explicitly name what to do instead if the caller is not an owner/admin, nor call out a failure alternative.

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