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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior beyond that: a hard page-size cap and the continuation mechanism via next_skip. It says nothing about auth requirements or what a returned team record contains, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three tight sentences: identity first, then paging, then query capabilities, ending with the endpoint. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, this covers enough to invoke it correctly. The main omission is which team field names are valid for $filter/$orderby, which an agent would need for anything beyond the simplest query.

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 are already documented with examples and bounds. The description mostly repeats the schema (50 max, filter/orderby support) and only marginally adds by revealing that the response exposes a next_skip field to feed back into skip. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"List teams" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the parenthetical "the groups that own and share contacts" defines what a team is versus a contact or organization. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as pobuca_get_team or pobuca_list_team_members, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It supplies concrete operational guidance: max 50 per call, pass next_skip as skip for the next page, and OData $filter/$orderby are supported. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but the usage pattern is clear and actionable.

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