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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses the free-team limit, the error behavior at the limit, that no charge is incurred until a teammate accepts, and the response fields join_url, join_link_expires_at, and join_link_uses_remaining. It also tells the agent to relay the limit error rather than retry, which is valuable operational behavior.

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?

The description is longer than average, but every sentence carries operational value: purpose, required/optional parameters, charge semantics, limit errors, response fields, and routing to the sibling tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps related concepts together.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully explains return values and their role. It covers edge cases, error handling, billing, and the alternative tool, making the agent's decision and invocation path complete without needing additional context.

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 description adds meaningful usage context for ref beyond the schema enum, specifying exactly when it must be set and when it must be omitted. The required nature of name is also reinforced with 'Required: name (string)'.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Create a new team') and clarifies ownership ('they become the owner'). It also distinguishes itself from teams-invite by explicitly naming that sibling as the alternative for inviting named addresses.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use teams-invite when the user names a specific address. It also gives precise instruction on when ref must be set to 'assistant_suggestion' and when it must be omitted, leaving no ambiguity.

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