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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable semantic context about the token/user scoping and what isActive represents, so the agent understands that the list is scoped to the current authenticated context.

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 description is two tight sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds the one essential field clarification. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description provides all necessary contextual input: the exact scope of the list and the meaning of the key field isActive. Nothing an agent needs for correct invocation 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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters for the description to elaborate on. The rating aligns with the baseline for zero-parameter tools, since no additional parameter guidance is needed.

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 description states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all teams (tenants) the current user belongs to'), making it obvious what the tool does. It also clarifies the meaning of isActive, which differentiates it from sibling tools such as get_active_tenant and switch_active_tenant.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to list all teams belonging to the current user. It does not explicitly contrast against siblings like get_active_tenant, but the scope is unambiguous enough that an agent can select this tool without confusion.

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