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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the underlying endpoint (GET /teams) and nothing else: no pagination behavior, no default page size, no indication of whether inactive teams are excluded by default or how large a result set can be.

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 sentences, purpose first, with no filler or repetition. The "API: GET /teams" clause is of limited value to an agent and is the one part that doesn't fully earn its place.

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 a fully documented schema and a readOnlyHint, an agent can invoke this tool correctly, so it is minimally complete. But for a five-parameter, cursor-paginated list tool with no output schema, the description says nothing about paging strategy or the shape of what comes back.

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 the exclusiveMinimum cursor semantics and the Yes/No enum) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning on top of that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 volunteer teams", which is a real improvement over the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish this from galaxydigital_get_team (single team) or say anything about scope, so sibling differentiation is left to the naming convention alone.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative get_team tool, and no note on when the since_id/since_created filters are appropriate. An agent must infer all of that from the tool name and schema.

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