dataverse_list_teams

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the returned fields and filtering behavior, which is useful but not critical beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise at four sentences, front-loading the purpose and key guidance. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured, though could be more compact without losing information.

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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and filtering guidance. However, it fails to explain the 'top' and 'select' parameters, leaving some gaps for a tool with multiple parameters and an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (despite schema containing descriptions, per context), the description only partially compensates by explaining the filter parameter. It omits details on 'top', 'select', and 'dataverse_url', leaving the agent without enough context for proper usage.

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 the tool lists teams in Dataverse, specifies returned fields, and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'dataverse_get_team' for full details. The verb 'list' and resource 'teams' are specific and unambiguous.

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 advises using the filter parameter to narrow results and directs users to 'dataverse_get_team' for full details, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative. It lacks explicit 'when not to use', but the context is sufficient.

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