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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description only restates this implicitly via the GET endpoint reference. It adds version context (Formbricks v2) but says nothing about pagination defaults, result limits, or permission requirements beyond what the annotation and schema already convey.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with virtually no waste. The API endpoint reference is somewhat redundant with the name and annotation, but it does not bloat the definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description gives no indication of the return shape, and it does not explain pagination behavior despite paginated parameters. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is moderate but real for a list tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (including skip, limit, order, sortBy) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics on top of that, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 the teams in an organisation'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from sibling list tools such as formbricks_list_organization_users and formbricks_list_roles. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The agent can only infer usage from the tool name and the required organization_id.

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