aap_list_teams

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds only the return type ('str: JSON with team list') but discloses no other behavioral traits such as pagination defaults, filtering semantics, or potential errors.

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 extremely concise with a clear structure (action, args, returns). No verbose or redundant text, though it is under-specified. This earns a high score for conciseness, not for completeness.

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 has a nested input object with three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not explain parameter meanings, default behaviors, or any edge cases, making it inadequate for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'Pagination and filter' for the params object, which gives a high-level hint but does not explain the individual parameters (page, search, page_size) or their defaults and constraints.

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 states 'List AAP teams' which identifies the action (list) and resource (teams) clearly. It is unambiguous but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like aap_list_organizations or aap_list_users beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action and provides arguments/returns, with no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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