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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say who becomes owner or member, whether creation is reversible, what the team name must satisfy, or what the user gets back.

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?

Three short sentences with the positive trigger front-loaded and zero filler. The trailing meditation-chat exclusion is a little incidental but still earns its place as a scope boundary.

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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, this is adequate to select the tool. It is silent on post-creation behavior (membership, invite flow, returned identifiers), which an agent would need in order to explain the result.

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 both parameters are described there, including the non-obvious 'tap' token from keep_progress. The description contributes nothing about parameters, 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: 'start a team of their own for friends, family or colleagues'. That clearly separates it from join_team or team_status, though it never names a sibling 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?

Gives a positive trigger ('when the user wants to start a team of their own') plus explicit exclusions for medical questions, emergencies, crisis and meditation chat. The exclusions are content guardrails rather than tool-routing rules, and no sibling alternative is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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