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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's added value is the required TEAMS_READ scope and the underlying GraphQL field (viewer.teams). Archived teams are excluded by default, which the schema covers. It adds real auth/implementation context beyond annotations, though it stops short of describing result size or ordering behavior.

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 tight sentences with the purpose and scope front-loaded before the auth prerequisite. The 'Parabol GraphQL: viewer.teams' fragment is mildly redundant implementation detail but plausibly aids agents mapping to the query layer.

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 tool, the description covers purpose, returned fields (needed since there is no output schema), and the auth scope. It omits any mention of pagination or result limits, which is the only meaningful gap given the annotations already cover safety.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage including its default (false), so the schema carries the semantics. The description never mentions includeArchived or its effect, which is the baseline-3 outcome when structured data already does the work.

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 (teams), scopes it precisely to 'the teams the viewer belongs to', and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, orgId, tier, team lead). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_team (single team) and list_organization_users without needing to open a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'viewer belongs to' scope and the stated TEAMS_READ prerequisite, which is useful auth guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., get_team or list_organizations) and no stated exclusions or pagination expectations.

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