Organization Teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations cannot: the admin-key requirement, the root-team scoping, and the enterprise availability gate, which materially affect whether a call can succeed.

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?

Front-loads the return value, then availability, then auth requirement, and closes with feature bullets. Efficient and skimmable; the 'Key Features' bullets partially restate the opening sentence rather than adding new 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description compensates by enumerating returned fields (is_org_root, usernames, display names). Auth requirements and availability are both covered, so an agent has everything needed 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 coverage is 100% for the single optional 'account' parameter, so the schema carries the semantics and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or meaning for the account parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the list of teams in your organization with their details') and disambiguates from siblings like get_organization_usage and list_accounts by naming teams as the subject. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear prerequisites: enterprise customers with organizations enabled, and must be called with an admin API key on the organization's root team. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the access gating is actionable.

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