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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine scope information beyond that: only metadata/approved fields are returned, and secrets, contacts and original files are explicitly excluded - a useful disclosure of redaction behavior. The vague phrase "through the existing application" adds nothing, keeping it from a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no padding. The clause "through the existing application" is vague filler and the second sentence is a comma-spliced fragment, but overall size is appropriate.

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 four-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no output schema and a sibling list_teams, the description does not explain parameter meaning, pagination, or the return shape. Only the redaction scope is covered, which is not enough for an agent to invoke it correctly on the first attempt.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for four parameters, yet it says nothing about targetId (required UUID), limit, offset or query. It does not even hint at whether the call is paginated or what query filters on, so an agent gains no semantics beyond the bare schema types.

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?

"Read authorised team" gives a verb plus resource, but it is ambiguous whether this returns a single team record or a paginated team listing, given the limit/offset/query parameters. It also never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_teams, so an agent cannot confidently pick between them from the text alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this over list_teams, no prerequisite or permission context, and no note about what targetId must reference. The agent is left to infer the selection rule entirely.

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