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

Annotations already establish a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the policies are inherited 'live' by every member, the response shape is enumerated, and an auth requirement (personal API key) is disclosed. This is genuinely additive, though it doesn't cover pagination or ordering.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by return contents and the auth prerequisite. No redundant or filler text.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields (permissions, scope, revision) and the live-inheritance behavior. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only pagination/result-size expectations are unstated.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage (the schema states the team_id is 'from list_teams'), the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing further about the id, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource (list team permission policies) and specifies the returned fields (permissions, scope, revision). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_member_permission_policies by scoping to policies 'a team holds', but never names that sibling, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

Gives one concrete prerequisite, 'Requires a personal API key', which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus list_member_permission_policies, list_permissions, or get_team, so the selection context is only implied.

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