List Teams

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it specifies the return format options, describes what information is returned (name, schedule type, rehearsal team status), and documents the specific error case ('Error: Resource not found'). While annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only operation, the description enhances understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, but includes some redundancy with the schema (e.g., repeating parameter descriptions). The core purpose is stated upfront, and the information is organized logically, though it could be more concise by avoiding duplication of schema details.

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 comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), 100% schema coverage, and the detailed description of returns and errors, this description provides complete context for a list operation. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the clear return description in the tool description.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats some parameter information but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema. It does provide the helpful tip about obtaining service_type_id from another tool, but this is more usage guidance than parameter semantics.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('teams'), specifies the context ('for a specific service type in Planning Center Services'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on teams rather than other entities like people, groups, or donations. It provides specific scope information that differentiates it from other list tools.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('for a specific service type') and mentions prerequisites ('get this from pco_list_service_types'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but doesn't fully cover all usage scenarios.

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