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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing "Read-only" adds nothing. The pillar list describes what is computed but not how it behaves: score ranges, the measurement window, aggregation level, or what the burnout risk indicators mean are all unstated.

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, front-loaded with the resource and metrics, and the parenthetical glosses on focus time, meeting load and context switching genuinely clarify each pillar. Only the redundant "Read-only" line is wasted space.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema) and annotations carry the safety profile, but the description never states the reporting period, score scale, or granularity the summary uses. An agent calling it cannot tell whether it needs to reason about a time window it cannot specify.

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?

With a single optional parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already explains teamId and the omit-for-org-wide behavior. The description adds no filtering semantics or scoping detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 ("Get") and resource ("team well-being scores") and enumerates the four measured pillars, which clearly separates it from siblings like get_dora_summary and get_org_health. An agent can tell what data comes back without opening the schema.

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?

"Use this to understand developer experience and identify teams under stress before it affects delivery" gives a clear use case and intent. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when a sibling (e.g. get_org_health, get_at_risk_prs) would be the better pick, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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