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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the exact return shape and the meaning of an empty list ('the user is in no team'), which is the main ambiguity for a scoped list call.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then usage routing, then return contract. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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 supplies the return shape ({teams: [{teamId, name, createdBy, createdAt}]}) and the empty-list semantics, and it routes the agent to the consuming tools. Nothing needed to call or interpret this zero-arg tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids inventing filtering options that do not exist.

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 the user belongs to) plus the membership scope (owner or member). An agent can distinguish it from muninn_team_shares_list, muninn_team_invites_list, and muninn_team_create without opening any 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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Use it to find a teamId before sharing memories, inviting someone, or listing a team's shares or invites' — naming the downstream operations that consume the returned teamId. It does not state a when-not condition or explicitly name a competing sibling, 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.