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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that the output includes role and member count, and that the teams belong to the key owner. This scoping information is not present in annotations and adds value for the agent.

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?

The description is two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no superfluous words. The first sentence states what it returns, and the second explains its downstream use. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the output fields (role, member count) and the practical use of the returned team IDs. It does not explicitly mention the limit parameter, but that is a minor omission given the schema already covers it. The absence of pagination details is acceptable for a simple list endpoint.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. However, the only parameter, 'limit', is self-explanatory with its default (50) and max/min constraints already defined in the schema. The description does not mention pagination or limit behavior, but the schema provides enough information. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing teams that the key owner belongs to, including role and member count. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('list teams') and adds useful context about how the output is used (team ids feed notes and collections tools). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the team listing aspect, which no other sibling provides.

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 explicitly mentions that team ids feed the notes and collections tools, providing a clear use case for when this tool should be invoked. It also implies that it is a precursor to those tools, and since there is no alternative team-listing tool among siblings, this guidance is sufficient and precise.

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