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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it names the GraphQL source (viewer.teams), the required auth scope, and the exact fields returned. It stops short of describing pagination or response shape, but for this simple read operation the added context is strong.

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 sentences front-load the core purpose and output fields, then add the data source and auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 simple read-only list operation with one optional parameter, the description fully covers purpose, output fields, data source, and required scope. No output schema exists, but the field list in the description compensates well.

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 only parameter, includeArchived, is fully described in the schema with its default value, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, placing it at the baseline score.

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 clear verb and resource: lists the teams the viewer belongs to, with specific fields. The description precisely differentiates this from sibling tools like list_organizations or get_team.

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?

Clearly establishes context: this is for listing the current viewer's teams, with a TEAMS_READ scope prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to route correctly.

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