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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it does not verify real organizations or independent operators, and test teams are excluded. This goes beyond the structured metadata and helps the agent set expectations.

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 concise two-sentence structure, front-loading the primary purpose and adding relevant caveats without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

The tool is simple, but without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of teams) and how the 'before' parameter works. It does neither, leaving agents uncertain about pagination or response format.

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 schema describes a single parameter 'before' with type integer and constraints, but no semantic meaning. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving its purpose (likely pagination or timestamp filtering) completely unexplained.

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 tool's function as 'Browse public teams' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself by clarifying membership control and excluding test teams, which sets it apart from sibling team-related tools like speedbot_team_create or speedbot_team_status.

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 context that this is for browsing public teams and that membership is credential-controlled, implying it is for read-only exploration. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives such as speedbot_rooms or speedbot_team_status, leaving usage selection to inference.

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