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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile. The description adds genuine context beyond annotations: the workspace/team naming discrepancy, the fact that returned ids are the team_id parameter used elsewhere, and the underlying REST endpoint. It does not mention auth scope requirements or empty-result behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One sentence plus a terse endpoint note. The essential fact (ids = team_id) is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, the team/workspace naming trap, and how the output feeds downstream tools.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is no parameter semantics to explain, and the description correctly focuses on the return-value identity (team_id) instead.

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 (List) and resource (workspaces) and immediately resolves the naming ambiguity by noting the ClickUp API calls these "teams". It also explains what the returned ids are for, which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like clickup_get_authorized_user.

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 implies the use case clearly — call this to obtain the team_id values consumed by other tools. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion, but no sibling overlaps meaningfully with workspace enumeration, so the guidance is sufficient in practice.

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