List team packages

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true so safety is covered. The description adds a useful scoping insight (team-only, excludes Portals), but says nothing about pagination behavior, default limits, or result ordering despite the schema exposing page/limit/sort.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. Slightly redundant in restating 'MASV' twice but efficient overall.

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?

Given 13 optional filters fully documented in schema and readOnly annotations, the description covers the key semantic distinction (team vs portal). It could still note pagination or that the full inventory needs two calls, but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 13 filters including status semantics and date formats. The description adds no parameter syntax or intent, 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 'Get' and resource 'team packages', and it explicitly distinguishes team packages from portal packages ('does not include packages sent to Portals'). However, it doesn't name the sibling tool get_portal_packages that returns the other half, leaving the agent to infer the pairing.

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?

States that this returns only team packages and that a full list requires combining with portal packages, which implies when to use it. But it gives no explicit condition telling the agent to call get_portal_packages or when this alone is sufficient.

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