list_teams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. 'List' indicates a read-only operation, which is important, but the description does not disclose whether results are paginated, ordered, or require any specific permissions. For a simple zero-parameter list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does without redundant words. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description covers the key details: what is listed and the scope ('in your Fathom organization'). The absence of an output schema is a minor gap, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there is simply nothing to document.

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 a specific resource ('all teams in your Fathom organization'), making the operation immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the meeting-focused sibling tools by naming 'teams' as the 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 clearly conveys that this tool is for retrieving teams in the organization, and the sibling tools all concern meetings or transcripts, so there is little ambiguity about when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the resource distinction is sufficient.

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