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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the guaranteed ordering by team ID, the enumerated role values, and the exact cursor-termination contract (null). Those are real behavioral details an agent needs to iterate correctly.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and ordered, then the pagination instruction. No filler or restated name/title.

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 an output schema present, return-format explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations cover safety. The only gap is the missing limit parameter semantics, which is minor for a simple 2-param, zero-required listing tool.

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 0% for 2 params, so the schema alone gives no prose meaning for limit or cursor. The description partially compensates by naming nextCursor and explaining the cursor loop termination, but it says nothing about limit (default 50, max 100) or cursor format, leaving that to the raw JSON constraints.

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 ('List teams') plus scope ('you belong to') and return content (role: owner/admin/member, ordered by team ID). An agent can distinguish this collection-listing tool from team_show or team_create without opening any schema.

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 pagination usage ('Follow nextCursor until null for the complete collection') but never states when to prefer this over siblings like team_show or workspace_member_list, nor any precondition. Usage is implied by the scope wording rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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