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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by noting that only teams accessible to the connected account are returned and that role/action information is included. This gives agents practical expectations about scope without contradicting the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core behavior. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first, but the third sentence usefully redirects admin operations to the web app without adding significant length.

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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers scope, access constraints, and out-of-band operations. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Per baseline for parameterless tools, this is sufficient.

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 tool lists Carryo teams accessible to the connected account and enumerates the fields included (names, workspaceId, roles, actions). This distinguishes it from the website-focused sibling tools by identifying the resource type (teams) and the operation (list).

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 clear context for when the tool is useful: finding a team the user has chosen. It also explicitly excludes team creation, invitations, membership, and billing by redirecting those to the Carryo web app, providing a when-not boundary even though it doesn't name alternative sibling tools.

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