aircall_list_teams

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description correctly aligns with them. The description adds context about the return payload (members and assigned numbers) but does not disclose pagination behavior or other operational details beyond what annotations cover.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the main action and resource. No wasted words; it efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

While the description is clear, it lacks coverage of pagination behavior despite having page and per_page parameters, and there is no output schema. It does not mention that 'all teams' may require pagination or how results are ordered, leaving some ambiguity for agents.

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 schema already describes all 3 parameters (page, order, per_page) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('teams') and clearly states the scope ('all teams') and content ('with their members and assigned numbers'). This effectively distinguishes it from the sibling tool aircall_get_team, which retrieves a single team.

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 implies usage by saying 'all teams', which suggests listing all teams rather than a specific one, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aircall_get_team, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools.

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