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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining auth-dependent visibility boundaries, which is important for setting caller expectations about the result set.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that leads with the core purpose and then provides the essential scoping nuance. Every clause adds meaningful information without unnecessary filler.

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 list tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, which teams are visible under each auth context, and the operation's safety profile is already established by annotations.

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 no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because the description is not required to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 operation ('List teams') and the specific resource scope ('teams the authenticated caller can act on'). It further differentiates behavior across credential types, which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like listOrgTeams and listMyOrganizations.

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 provides clear context about which teams will be returned for different authentication modes, making it evident this is the correct tool for listing personally accessible teams. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scoping rules effectively imply when to use it.

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