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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. Beyond that, the description adds a real behavioral constraint the annotations do not carry: the caller must be a Team owner, and the call is anchored to an expected revision (implying optimistic-concurrency failure if stale).

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the permission constraint appended. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a 'preview of the impact' actually returns, and it does not. Combined with an undocumented nested policy object and an unexplained expectedRevision contract, an agent is left guessing at the result and payload format.

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 0% and the nested 'policy' object is entirely undocumented. The description alludes to the policy and to 'expected revision' but says nothing about the shape of the policy payload or the role of organizationId, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Preview') plus resource ('Team sync policy') and a scope qualifier ('at its expected revision'). It implicitly separates itself from publish_team_sync_policy and get_team_sync_policy, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Team owners only' gives an authorization precondition, and 'preview' implies it should be used before publishing. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over publish_team_sync_policy or get_team_sync_policy, so usage is only implied.

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