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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description is not burdened there. It adds genuinely new context: the required API-key scope `teams:read` and the fact that the payload is a full TeamDTO including members — the latter matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action and scope front-loaded before the return-value and auth details. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With three parameters (two optional, well documented in schema) and no output schema, the description supplies the two things the structured data cannot: the return shape (full TeamDTO with members) and the required auth scope. The only gap is guidance on sourcing the identifier and relating it to pm_list_teams.

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%, including detailed notes on the optional `account` and `workspace` parameters, so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description only echoes that the identifier is a team identifier, adding no format or behavioral detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ("Fetch a team by identifier") and scopes it to a single entity via an identifier, which implicitly separates it from pm_list_teams. It stops short of naming that sibling or any other team-related tool, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent must infer that this is the right tool when it already has a team_… identifier rather than needing to enumerate teams. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over pm_list_teams, and no mention of how to obtain an identifier.

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