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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds 'Read-only and free; you must be a member of the team', which reinforces the safety profile and adds cost context and membership requirement. No contradictions.

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 the core purpose. Every word earns its place: purpose, ordering, optional search, usage context, prerequisite, membership, and read-only/free status. No fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, output schema present, read-only, no nested objects), the description fully covers purpose, usage, ordering, prerequisite, membership, and optional search. Nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, except implicitly mentioning 'newest first' ordering which is not a parameter. 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'ideas', the scope 'belong to a team', ordering 'newest first', and optional keyword search. It distinguishes from siblings like list_my_ideas and search_ideas by specifying team membership and a prior step to get teamId.

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?

Explicitly says 'use it to review a team portfolio once you have a teamId from list_my_teams', providing a clear prerequisite and usage scenario. It implies membership requirement but does not explicitly contrast with other list tools (e.g., list_my_ideas), missing a small opportunity for exclusion guidance.

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