List teams

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing the returned payload shape (rosters, targets, pending awards) and the plan entitlement requirement. That entitlement note is meaningful behavioral information not present in the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the payload scope front-loaded and the prerequisite second. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 usefully enumerates what comes back (rosters, targets, pending awards), which is exactly the gap an agent would otherwise hit. Pagination and the plan gate are covered; only the absence of output structure detail keeps it from a 5.

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% with only page and limit, both fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the 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 Affiliate Teams') and further specifies what the listing includes: rosters, targets and pending awards. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular get_team and from list_team_goals/list_awards, though it does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative.

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?

Adds a real eligibility gate — 'Requires the Scale plan' — which tells the agent when this tool can be used at all. It does not spell out an explicit alternative ('use get_team for one team'), but the list-vs-get distinction is clear from the naming and content scope.

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