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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description's help. The description adds only the set of fields returned, which partially overlaps the fields enum in the schema; it says nothing about behavior for an unknown team_id or error conditions.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then names the payload. Every clause carries information; there is no padding or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and the annotations cover the safety profile for this simple read. But the required identifier is left undescribed and there is no mention of failure behavior or the optional field-selection parameter, leaving gaps for a two-parameter tool.

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 50%: the optional 'fields' parameter is documented in the schema, but team_id carries no description beyond integer/minimum=1. The prose never mentions either parameter, so it contributes no meaning about what team_id refers to or how 'fields' interacts with the returned attributes.

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 ('Get one team') and even enumerates the returned attributes (name, description, auto-assign flag), which clearly separates it from creation/update/delete team siblings. It does not, however, explicitly point at list_teams or get_team_report as the contrasting alternatives.

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 by the word 'one': an agent can infer this is the single-record counterpart to list_teams, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. For a crowded team-related sibling set, that is minimal guidance.

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