list_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by mentioning pagination via 'after_id' and listing the return fields. While no contradictions, it doesn't add extensive behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words. 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 9 parameters, presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately covers pagination, filtering, and links to the sibling tool for more detail. It is complete for an agent to understand how to use this tool.

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% with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds context by highlighting pagination mechanism ('by id (after_id)') and partial matching for 'q', and listing return fields. This provides meaningful additional information beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states 'List teams' and specifies pagination and filtering options. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_team' tool by directing users to use get_team for full detail on a single team. This satisfies the high bar for purpose clarity.

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 explicit guidance: use this tool for listing teams with filters and pagination, and use get_team for detailed info on a specific team. It also implies usage through pagination via after_id. This clearly differentiates from alternatives.

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