List Teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: MCP-side pagination, default fields, and the effect of expand and include_user_contact_info. This goes beyond the structured annotations and schema descriptions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause provides essential information. There is no filler or repetition.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: what it returns, how pagination works, and how to expand results. The output schema handles return details, so no further completeness is needed.

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%, and the description further explains parameter behavior, especially the interplay between expand and include_user_contact_info, as well as the pagination rationale. This adds meaning beyond the schema's individual property descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool 'Lists Recruit CRM teams with MCP-side pagination', specifying the resource (Recruit CRM teams) and the action (list). It also distinguishes from siblings like list_users or list_candidates by focusing on teams and detailing return fields.

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 gives clear context on what the tool does and how to customize output via expand and include_user_contact_info, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternative list tools. Implied usage is sufficient for an agent, but no exclusions or named alternatives are provided.

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