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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful domain context that the catalog contains ready-made teams with member roles, but it does not describe pagination, catalog size, or output structure beyond the phrase 'with each member's role.'

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 definition is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core concept of ready-made agent teams. The relative clause referring to create_agent_team is slightly indirect, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a simple read-only catalog tool with one optional parameter, strong annotations, and 100% schema documentation, the description supplies enough context about the catalog's contents and its relationship to create_agent_team. It could be more explicit about using this tool before creating a team, but it is adequate for correct selection.

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%, so the single optional lang parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as ready-made agent teams with member roles, and links it to create_agent_team. It does not explicitly use a list verb, but the catalog nature is clear and the resource is distinguished from agent-level templates by naming teams.

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 mention that create_agent_team builds these teams in one step implies this tool is used to discover options before creating a team. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and does not mention the sibling list_agent_templates as an alternative.

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