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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: it enumerates what the install record reveals (platform, success status, timing), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It omits any note on what happens when no install record exists.

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, return content front-loaded, then the usage hint. No filler and no repetition of the title or schema.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably well by naming the signature HTML and the install record fields. It could be stronger by noting the empty/no-record case, which is the exact scenario the usage hint points at.

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 single id parameter is documented in the schema as 'Teammate id from list_teammates.' The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description states the specific resource and its return content: 'The signature HTML this teammate has, plus the install record' with fields (platform, success, time). This is far more than restating the name, and the content focus distinguishes it from a generic get_teammate. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling tools like preview_signature.

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 answer "why does X have no signature"' gives a concrete triggering scenario an agent can pattern-match. There is no statement of when-not-to-use or which sibling to prefer for other cases, so it falls below the 5 bar.

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