search_teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Search for teams' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's paginated, rate-limited, or what the response format might be. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted text. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded but lacks substance, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for a search operation. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful search, what data is returned, or any behavioral characteristics. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall completeness is poor for a tool that likely returns structured results.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (text and page). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter details in the description.

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 'Search for teams' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the verb 'search' and resource 'teams' but provides no details about scope, filtering criteria, or what constitutes a team in this context. This is minimally better than a single-word description but fails to distinguish the tool from potential alternatives.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_team_info' or 'get_team_members'. The agent must guess based solely on the tool name.

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