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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the non-obvious membership scope (owner/admin only) and that one entry is flagged as currently active. It does not discuss the return shape or empty-state behavior, but the output schema plus annotations cover the rest.

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?

Two tight sentences, no waste, with the scoping constraint and the active-team marker front-loaded before the routing hint to set_current_team.

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 zero-parameter read with an output schema and readOnly annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: scope and active-team flagging are stated, and safety is covered elsewhere. Only edge cases (no teams, non-owner membership) are unaddressed.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The membership and active-team framing is scope information, not parameter documentation.

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 (list teams) and adds real scope: only teams where the user is owner or admin, with the active team marked. This decisively separates it from sibling list tools like list_connected_accounts or list_drafts.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to set_current_team for switching teams, naming the alternative and the condition. It does not state when *not* to call this tool or what to do when the list is empty, so it falls short of a full 5.

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