list_teams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it discloses the default limit override, max page size, and the _metadata/offset/next pagination contract. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only list endpoint the key call-time behaviors are covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then default behavior, then pagination. No filler; each sentence adds usable detail, and the only minor extra is the notes example.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, defaults, and pagination algorithm. It could be more explicit about which pagination style applies to teams, but the presence of an offset parameter in the schema makes it inferable.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining why limit defaults to 100 (FUB max) and how offset/next drive follow-up pagination. It doesn't elaborate on extraQuery, but the schema already documents that parameter.

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 opening phrase 'Get a list of teams' names a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint 'GET /teams' reinforces scope. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling get_team, though it doesn't explicitly call out that alternative.

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 practical when-to-use context: list endpoints for bulk requests, defaulting to max page size, with explicit pagination steps. It doesn't explicitly route to get_team for single-team lookups or say when not to use it, but the bulk-request framing is clear context.

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