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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the result set is permission-scoped to the signed-in account rather than the whole platform. It does not mention pagination behavior or result limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 scope constraint that most affects correct use, followed by filtering guidance and a sibling pointer. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the visibility scope of the result set. Absent output schema means it needn't describe returns, and pagination detail lives in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 100%, so all four parameters (page, search, page_size, event_slug) are already documented. The description restates filter intent slightly more actionably but adds no syntax, matching rules, or combination behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (list teams) and immediately bounds the resource with a precise scope: teams the account belongs to, created, or administers. It explicitly contrasts with team_get for single-team detail, so an agent can route between the two without opening either 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?

Gives explicit filtering conditions (event_slug for one event, search to match name/description) and names the alternative tool plus the trigger for it ('once you have its id'). It also pre-empts a common misuse by stating this is never a full public directory.

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