search_org_teams

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that q is optional, but does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or whether the search is case-insensitive. It adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 tight sentence with no filler. The key verb, resource, and search criterion are all front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

Adequate for a simple read-only search tool with an output schema, but incomplete: the required org parameter is only implied, not explicitly identified as the organization identifier, and page/limit semantics are absent. The description works for basic calls but leaves pagination details to inference.

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 must compensate. It explains q ('by name') and implies org ('in an organization'), but page and limit are left completely unexplained. The schema titles alone are insufficient for an agent to understand pagination semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('teams in an organization'), and specifies the matching criterion ('by name'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling search tools like search_repos and search_users by the resource type being searched.

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 the usage context: use it when you need to find teams by name within an organization. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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