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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: the visibility scope is account-dependent, it is never a public directory, and it supports filtering. This meaningfully clarifies what the result set will contain.

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: core scope first, then filtering options, then the routing to team_get. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no repetition or filler.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with four well-documented optional parameters, annotations clarifying read-only and non-destructive behavior, and a description covering scope, filtering, and alternative selection. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces event_slug and search usage but does not substantially add meaning beyond the schema's own parameter documentation.

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') and immediately scopes it to what the signed-in account can see, explicitly ruling out a full public directory. It also distinguishes itself from team_get by pointing to that sibling for single-team detail.

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?

Gives concrete direction on when to filter with event_slug or search, and explicitly routes the agent to team_get for full detail once an id is known. This tells the agent how to select and use the tool, even without opening the schema.

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