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

'Read-only' merely restates readOnlyHint=true from the annotations, earning no credit. The only extra disclosure is 'GraphQL: query teams', an implementation note; nothing is said about pagination/limits or auth needs beyond what the schema and annotations already provide.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with purpose first and usage routing second. 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotations and 'GraphQL: query teams' is mildly filler, but nothing is verbose.

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 helpfully enumerates the returned fields (id, key, name) and points to how they are consumed downstream. The single pagination parameter is covered by the schema, so only minor gaps remain.

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% and the single 'first' parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Max teams to return. Default 50.'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List the teams in the workspace') with the returned fields (id, key, name) named inline. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like linear_list_projects and linear_list_cycles, which list different resources.

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 downstream: use a team's id for linear_create_issue, or its key for linear_search_issues. No sibling lists teams, so no exclusion is needed, but it stops short of stating when a caller should avoid this call (e.g., when teams are already cached).

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