list_teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'List all teams' suggests a single, complete listing, but the schema includes limit and cursor parameters indicating pagination. The description does not clarify that 'all' may require multiple calls or explain the pagination behavior, which is a meaningful gap.

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, complete sentence that is perfectly front-loaded. It conveys the essential action and scope without any redundant or verbose language, making it highly efficient.

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 the low complexity and complete parameter documentation, the description is adequate but not fully complete. There is no output schema, and the description does not mention the return format (e.g., array of team objects) nor clarify how pagination interacts with the 'all teams' claim. These gaps prevent a higher score.

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% with clear descriptions for both 'limit' and 'cursor'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema already communicates the parameter semantics adequately.

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 ('teams') with explicit scope ('in the Fivetran account'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling list tools such as list_groups, list_users, and list_connections. It is immediately obvious what action is performed and on what entity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list tools. While the name implies listing teams, there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the resource name alone.

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