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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'List' does at minimum signal a non-destructive read operation. However, it says nothing about the api_key authorization requirement, whether results are paginated or bounded, or what a team entry contains. The read-only signal is the main behavioral value delivered.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though the terseness contributes to gaps 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but omits what the listing returns (team names, IDs, counts) and the auth expectation implied by api_key. Slightly more detail on return content would close the remaining gap.

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 0% and the single required parameter (api_key) is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description never mentions authentication, so an agent gets no meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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 ('List') and resource ('shared teams') with an explicit scope ('you are a member of'), which cleanly separates it from team_create, team_join, and team_forget. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 'teams you are a member of' framing implies the use case (discovering your memberships) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never points to team_recall or team_join as alternatives. Usage must be inferred from the phrasing alone.

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