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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that profile – no pagination behavior, no result-set size or ordering – so it does not earn credit for extra behavioral context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or restatement. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the guidance noted elsewhere.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. Missing pieces are pagination/result-limit behavior and legitimate values for status, which an agent would need to call it optimally.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of the two parameters. It does map both to filter semantics (creator and status), which is real value over an undocumented schema, but it gives no formats, value sets, or whether the creator is an ID versus a name.

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 the optional narrowing criteria, so an agent immediately knows this is a read/list operation. It stops short of 5 because it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling get_team or explain the list-vs-single boundary.

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?

"Optionally filtered by creator/status" implies the intended usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer get_team, and no exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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