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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by specifying the per-row return shape (id, name, description, memberCount, createdAt), which matters because there is no output schema; it does not, however, mention pagination behavior for the cursor.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return shape, then the routing hint. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the row fields an agent needs to consume the result. The remaining gap is pagination semantics for cursor, which is unaddressed in both the description and the schema.

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 only 50%: limit is documented in the schema ('Default 50, max 100') but cursor has no description anywhere. The description text adds nothing about parameters or pagination, so the undocumented half is left entirely to inference.

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 and resource with scope: 'List teams in this org'. It also names the sibling it is not (get_team) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from get_team and list_team_members without opening either schema.

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?

'PREFER get_team for full member detail' gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not address the other nearby option (list_team_members) or state when listing is the right choice versus fetching a single team by id, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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