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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real context beyond them: the initial grant requires the owner's session with origin and CSRF checks, revocation blocks search/downloads even with an existing session or key, and responses use 'private, no-store'. That auth and caching disclosure is genuinely useful and does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Seven dense sentences of prose, with the tool's core purpose buried in clause one and the rest largely devoted to sharing and revocation rules that read like they belong to share_base_team/unshare_base_team. No front-loading and no structural separation of purpose from caveats.

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?

With no output schema, the description should convey what the team grant response looks like; it never does, saying only that responses are 'private, no-store'. It partially compensates by explaining the grant/access model, but the return shape remains unknown for a read tool in a crowded sibling set.

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?

Only one parameter (base_id) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it as the 64-character resource ID. The description adds nothing about base_id, which is the baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening clause 'Read the team grant for your base' does state a verb and resource, but the actual purpose is immediately drowned by sharing/revocation semantics. It never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling team_get_base or from get_collection_team, so an agent cannot tell which grant reader to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites stated as call conditions, and no named alternative (team_get_base, get_collection_team). The description discusses access rules the server enforces, not when an agent should invoke this tool versus its siblings.

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