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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the scope ('authenticated user') but does not mention pagination, response format, potential errors, or whether any side effects occur. This is essentially a purpose statement rather than a behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It clearly states what the tool does and the scope, making it concise and well-structured for a zero-parameter tool.

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 and has no parameters, so the description is mostly adequate for calling it. However, there is no output schema and no annotation; the description does not specify the return value shape, whether pagination is involved, or any other details an agent might need after receiving the result. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, which is appropriate and requires no further explanation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all teams the authenticated user belongs to.' It clearly scopes the operation to the current user and distinguishes it from search-based siblings like search_teams by emphasizing 'all' teams the user is a member of.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this over alternatives. It does not mention search_teams, list_accounts, or any other sibling that might overlap. The intended context is only implicit in the wording.

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