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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns matching teams', leaving ambiguous whether matching is exact, substring, case-insensitive, or whether pagination, ordering, or rate limits apply. These details materially affect an agent's expectation and are not disclosed.

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 two short sentences that are entirely on point: one states the operation and target, the other states the return. There is no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant detail.

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 tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves key facts ambiguous, particularly the matching semantics. It covers the core function but does not fully prepare an agent to correctly interpret the meaning of a 'match' or know what response format to expect.

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%, so the description must add meaning to the sole parameter 'query'. It does state that the search is 'by name', which clarifies the semantic role of the query parameter. However, it does not specify match behavior (e.g., exact vs partial) or any constraints on the query length or format, so it only partially compensates.

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 names the verb 'Search' and resource 'teams' and adds a filtering criterion ('by name'), which lets an agent distinguish it from list_teams without opening the schema. It does not explicitly call out the sibling difference, but the scoping to name makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would search by name when they need specific teams matching a query. There is no explicit 'when to use list_teams instead' or 'use list_teams to get all teams', but the presence of sibling list_teams and the wording 'search' convey the primary distinction. No exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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