teams_list_chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by warning that message text is authored by others and must be treated as data, not instructions (prompt-injection defense). It also discloses what a 1:1 chat title contains. No pagination or result-cap behavior is described beyond the schema's limit.

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: the first front-loads the tool's purpose and returned fields, the second chains to the follow-up tool and carries the security caveat. No wasted text.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, what fields come back, the id-chaining, and the untrusted-data caveat, while the schema handles the lone parameter. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single optional `limit` parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Max chats (default 30)'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about limiting or ordering, so the baseline of 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 recent Teams personal conversations') and scopes it to 1:1, group and meeting chats, then enumerates the fields returned (id, title, unread, preview). It is clearly a 'recent overview' listing rather than a search/find tool, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 an explicit next step: 'Use the id with teams_get_messages,' establishing the discovery-to-read chain. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over teams_find_chat or teams_get_unread, so no true exclusions are offered.

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