list_teams

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'List teams based on the provided query model.' It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or other traits.

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 short and front-loaded, with a clear verb and resource. The docstring format is structured. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding much length.

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 annotations, input schema, and output schema present, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not summarize default values, pagination behavior, or the scope parameter's effect, though these are covered in the schema.

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% for the required parameter 'query_model', yet the description only says 'The model containing the query parameters'—a generic statement. The nested schema fields have descriptions, but the description fails to explain the parameter structure or usage, so it does not compensate for the lack of coverage.

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 'List teams' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_team' by indicating a list operation. The docstring structure with Args and Returns adds clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_team' or other list tools. The description does not mention context, when-not, or provide any selection criteria.

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