lookup_teams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a count and summary of teams, including IDs for use in other API calls, but lacks critical details like whether it's read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose before detailing parameters. It uses two sentences for the main description and two for parameter explanations, with no redundant information. However, the parameter explanations are embedded in the main text rather than structured separately, slightly affecting readability.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context like authentication or performance traits. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but overall, it's adequate with clear gaps in usage and transparency.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains both parameters in detail: 'id' as a comma-separated list for fetching multiple teams and 'name' for filtering teams starting with a specified string, including examples. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantics for all parameters.

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's purpose: 'Queries the organization of the requesting account and returns the number of teams matching the query and a summary of each team.' It specifies the verb 'queries' and resource 'teams' with output details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_team' or 'get_my_active_team', which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions filtering with the name parameter but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_team' or 'list_team_members'. There's no context on prerequisites, such as authentication needs or organizational scope, leaving the agent with little direction on appropriate use cases.

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