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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint=true`, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: visibility is constrained to what the account can see, and `event_slug`/ufiltered calls can silently return incomplete rows with a `note`. This kind of endpoint-level caveat is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results 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?

The description is dense but every sentence carries load: purpose, visibility, sibling routing, filter semantics, and a warning about truncation. The first sentence states the core function, and the caveats are organized into a compact paragraph. There is no filler or repetition.

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 with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what matters: who can see results, how to filter, when to prefer `team_id`, and what incomplete results look like. It also names the sibling tools and fallback strategy, so an agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 each parameter's basic role is already documented. The description adds valuable semantics not in the schema: `team_id` is answered exactly while `event_slug` is not, and the unfiltered form has a known failure/truncation mode. That goes beyond baseline schema description without fully re-explaining every parameter.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('List the positions teams are looking to fill') and draws a sharp boundary against the sibling `team_seeking_members`, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does. The title is expanded with concrete examples and scope, making it clearly distinguishable from related tools.

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?

It explicitly says when not to use it ('It is not a public cross-team browse... that is `team_seeking_members`) and gives pairings (`pair it with `event_free_agents` and `team_matchmaking_teams`). It also explains when to filter by `team_id` vs `event_slug` and when to ask per team, leaving few usage decisions to inference.

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