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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them: it discloses the auth requirement (personal API key) and the semantic that policies are inherited live by every member, which is not expressible in structured fields.

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?

Two compact clauses with zero filler: the core action and scope come first, followed by the auth prerequisite. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 sketches the return contents (permissions, scope, revision) in addition to the auth requirement. For a single-parameter read tool, this is nearly sufficient; only pagination or ordering behavior is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and the single team_id parameter is already documented with a pointer to list_teams. The description adds no further syntax or formatting detail about the identifier, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the permission policies a team holds") and scopes it to teams rather than members, which is the key distinction from the sibling list_member_permission_policies. The sibling is not named explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference from "a team holds".

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?

Provides a real prerequisite ("Requires a personal API key") and implicitly frames the use case via the live-inheritance model, letting an agent understand when this view is relevant versus member-level policies. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or a when-not condition.

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