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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's main additions are the upstream endpoint (Trengo: GET /teams) and the id-usage note. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite the page parameter, or about the shape/limits of the returned list.

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?

One compact sentence with the core capability and purpose front-loaded. The trailing endpoint citation is marginally useful for debugging but is essentially restatement overhead.

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 with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (teams and their ids) and what to do with it. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100% for the single page parameter, which is already documented as 'Page number (1-based). Omit for the first page.' The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so 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 and resource ('List the teams in the account') and adds the downstream purpose of the returned ids. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools (list_users, list_contact_groups), but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

'use their ids to assign tickets to a team' gives clear context for when an agent needs this tool — it feeds trengo_assign_ticket. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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