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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it includes non-member teams, explains that 'role' is omitted when the caller isn't a member, and details how the returned 'id' and scope 'id'/'filterCel' should be used in other calls. This goes beyond the annotation basics.

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 moderately long but every sentence carries functional information: resource scope, field meanings, how to repurpose IDs, and usage triggers. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized logically, though it could be tightened by merging the scope/filterCel details into a more compact phrasing.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return structure (id, visibility, role, scope id, filterCel) and how to consume those fields in other tools. It omits pagination or ordering, but those are not critical for a list operation, and the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 input schema already documents both parameters fully (slug auto-detection behavior, and query as optional team-name search) with 100% coverage. The description reiterates the query filtering but adds no new parameter-level meaning. Per the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, which is appropriate here.

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 states a precise verb and resource ('List all non-archived teams') and clearly distinguishes itself by noting it includes teams the user is not a member of, which sets it apart from other list_* tools. It also specifies the data returned per team, removing any ambiguity about what the tool outputs.

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 explicitly lists three concrete use cases: when the user asks about team costs, wants to filter by team scope, or needs a teamId for sharing dashboards/reports/budgets/alerts. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the listed scenarios are sufficiently specific to guide selection.

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