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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, closed-world call, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the fact that all write tools operate against this team by default, which tells the agent how this value propagates into other calls. Return shape is covered by the existing output schema.

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 with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the secondary note about write-tool defaults. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read with full annotations and an output schema, the definition covers what is needed to call it correctly. It could go slightly further by noting what to do if the active team is wrong (use switch_active_tenant), but nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add or omit.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('the team (tenant) this token is currently operating against'), and it disambiguates the tenant/team vocabulary used in the title versus the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_my_tenants or switch_active_tenant, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

Usage is only implied: the second sentence ('All write tools default to this team') hints at why an agent would need the current team, but there is no explicit when-to-call guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (switch_active_tenant to change it, list_my_tenants to enumerate).

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