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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), and the description adds real behavioral context: the exact response envelope (totalServices, the per-service fields, pagination) and the underlying endpoint semantics (GET /services, team-scoped). It stops short of stating auth requirements or default page sizes.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then compresses the entire return shape into a single brace expression instead of prose — efficient. The trailing "Spike: GET /services (team-scoped)" is mildly redundant with the opening phrase.

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 usefully inline-documents the response payload and pagination, which is exactly what an agent needs to consume results. The single optional parameter is fully covered by the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100% — the teamId description already explains the 24-char hex format, the x-team-id header, the SPIKE_TEAM_ID default when omitted, and the spike_list_teams lookup path. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List a team's services") and scopes it to the team, which distinguishes it from the singular spike_get_service and from spike_list_teams. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative; the only routing hint (use spike_list_teams to find ids) lives in the parameter schema, not the description. An agent must infer from the tool name alone when to pick this over spike_get_service.

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