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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the required-parameter constraint and the underlying GET /v3/services mapping, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or ordering for a list endpoint.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the required-parameter constraint front-loaded ahead of the API mapping. Every sentence earns its place.

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 filtered-list tool whose safety profile is already in annotations and with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential prerequisite and tool routing. Only result size/pagination behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description usefully emphasizes that owner_id must be a TEAM id (the schema phrase 'Team id that owns the services' is similar), but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('List services for a team'), which clearly separates it from the singular sibling squadcast_get_service. It is not tautological, though it never names the sibling it contrasts with explicitly.

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 states the precondition clearly: owner_id is REQUIRED and tells the agent to call squadcast_list_teams to obtain it, which is genuine cross-tool routing. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over squadcast_get_service for a single service.

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