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

Annotations already mark readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: null on unknown id, bounded roster previews, at most five ids, duplicate members entries, stale ids meaning departed users, and the absence of any full-roster operation. This goes well beyond the annotation basics.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place by explaining return format, preview limits, member name resolution, stale-member behavior, and a critical usage warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured to avoid ambiguity.

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 must carry the full interpretative burden, and it does: it explains the return shape, null behavior, bounded preview semantics, member_count/admin_count, and the no-full-roster limitation. An agent has everything needed to call this tool and correctly interpret its result.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema coverage with a helpful description ('Team id (team_…) from team.list'), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The tool description only adds behavior on unknown ids, not new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with 'Read one team,' a specific verb plus resource, and further distinguishes itself by describing the exact return shape: direct record, no envelope or cursors, and null for unknown ids. The singular scope clearly separates it from team__list and other team operations.

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?

States clear scope: reading a single team by id, and clarifies that there is no full-roster operation, telling the agent to rely on member_count rather than implying the preview is complete. It does not explicitly name an alternative like team__list, but the context makes the singular-versus-list distinction evident.

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