Organization Teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: the access gate and the admin-key/root-team authentication requirement.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then availability and auth constraints, then a key-features list. The docs link and feature bullets are slightly redundant but each carries some information, so it is reasonably efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully names the returned fields (is_org_root, usernames, display names) and the access constraints. It is close to complete for a read-only listing tool, though pagination/return shape is not addressed.

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% and the single 'account' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 enumerates the fields returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the listing siblings (e.g., list_accounts), but no sibling lists teams, so confusion is low.

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?

Provides strong context: enterprise-only availability and the requirement to call with an admin API key on the organization's root team. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the prerequisite framing is clear.

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