List Aircall teams

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the scope detail that teams include member information, which is useful context, but it does not describe pagination behavior or return format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It clearly states the action and resource in a concise manner, earning a perfect score for brevity.

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 read-only list tool, the description, schema, and annotations together are adequate. The schema documents all parameters, annotations cover safety, and the description hints at response scope (members). A fully comprehensive description might explicitly mention default pagination, but the schema already covers defaults, so there is no critical gap.

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?

All three parameters (page, order, per_page) have detailed descriptions in the schema, so coverage is 100%. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, keeping it at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Aircall teams') plus additional detail ('and their members'), making it clear this tool fetches all teams. It is distinct from siblings like aircall_get_team (single team) and aircall_list_users (users only).

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 explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative tool names are given. Usage is only implied by the 'list' verb and the presence of sibling get_team, which would be used for a specific team. There is no mention of pagination needs or when to use this over other list/search tools.

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