List my team

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose two useful traits: the result is empty if the user manages no orgs, and the response names the identity it answered for; 'List' also implies a read-only operation. It omits permission/precondition behavior and pagination semantics beyond the limit parameter.

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 core scope statement is front-loaded in the first sentence and the follow-on tool routing is compact. The final sentence about naming people, roles and requests by display names is cross-cutting write-side advice that sits awkwardly on a read tool and slightly dilutes focus.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description still flags the key semantic (which identity the answer is for) plus the empty case. For a single-parameter list tool this is nearly sufficient; only the relationship to the similarly named teammates/managers tools is left unclear.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully (default 20, max 100), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about the limit, such as behavior when more reports exist than the limit allows.

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 plus a precise scope definition: direct reports as the members of orgs the authenticated user manages, with the empty-result edge case spelled out. What keeps it from a 5 is that the near-identical sibling list_my_teammates (and list_my_managers) is never mentioned, so an agent must still infer how 'my team' differs from 'my teammates'.

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 concrete downstream routing: use the returned OIDs with get_user_assignments to review access, or request_role to request access for a report. That is clear when-to-use guidance tied to named tools, but there is no when-not guidance or prerequisite (e.g., what the caller must be to have reports).

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