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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that the response contains real member email addresses and by setting an explicit handling expectation for that sensitive data. It also notes the UUID-to-name translation behavior and the equivalence to the postey://teams resource, which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 core purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the translation behavior and resource equivalence. The final two sentences on email handling are slightly verbose but earn their place by covering a real privacy concern.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations already cover safety. What remains — what the tool does, why it exists versus the resource, and the sensitivity of the returned data — is fully addressed for a one-parameter read 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?

The single required team_id is already described inline in the schema ('Numeric team_id from postey://teams'), and the description only indirectly reinforces its origin by referencing postey://teams/{team_id}. It adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full team details') and enumerates exactly what is returned: every member's resolved display name, email, and access level. It also clarifies a distinct secondary function (translating created_by/published_by UUIDs into names), which separates it from the list-oriented sibling get_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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to prefer this tool over the MCP resource (clients that cannot read resources) and gives context on when member emails are appropriate to use. It stops short of naming a sibling tool alternative or exclusion, so it is clear but not fully comparative.

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