List Teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add one piece of real value beyond annotations — that results include member counts and cost codes — but says nothing about page budget consumption, whether all teams or only visible ones are returned, or ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource, its domain meaning, and the payload contents all land in one read.

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 previews the return payload (member counts, cost codes), and the pagination semantics are fully carried by the schema. The remaining gap is context about scope — whether the list is tenant-wide or filtered to the caller's permissions — which matters for an open-world read tool.

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 three well-documented optional pagination parameters (page/nextPage continuation, maxPages against the daily budget, pageSize max 50). The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, 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?

Specific verb+resource ('List teams') with a parenthetical clarifying what a team is ('billing/access groups') and what the rows carry ('member counts and cost codes'). It implicitly separates itself from telgea_create_team / telgea_update_team and from telgea_list_users by naming the resource distinctly, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to prefer this over telgea_list_users or telgea_list_data_pool_members, or to call it before telgea_create_team to check existing teams. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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