List Teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that this is a safe read operation. It adds the return format (names, descriptions, IDs), which is useful but does not go beyond what annotations already convey about behavior. No mention of pagination, locking, or other side effects, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the main action and scope, the second lists the return fields. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and has zero unnecessary words or repetition of the tool name.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, scope, and return format. It doesn't mention pagination or error behavior, but for a simple list tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, these are minor omissions. The lack of an output schema makes the return-value note particularly helpful, so the description is largely complete for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'tenantId' is fully described in the schema (purpose, pattern, when to omit). The description adds no additional meaning about how tenantId affects the result beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for a fully documented parameter.

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 action ('List all Microsoft Teams'), the resource (Microsoft Teams), and the scope ('that the current user is a member of'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_channels (channels within teams) and list_tenants (tenants). It also mentions the return fields (names, descriptions, IDs), making the purpose 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 implies usage (to list teams the user belongs to) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_channels or list_team_members. It lacks any explicit 'when not to use' or mention of alternative tools, though the scope is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case.

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