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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the description's real contribution is the callable context: nonmembers can read under authenticated discovery, members are ordered by account ID, and pagination continues via members.nextCursor until null. It also flags that invite_url is safe to share, a meaningful disclosure. It stops short of describing not-found or permission-failure behavior, so not a 5.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining sentences each add distinct information (auth scope, ordering/pagination, invite contents). The final sentence runs long with an enumerated field list that partly duplicates the output schema, which is the only slack.

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 read-only tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers what structured fields cannot: who can call it, pagination termination, and share-safety of invite_url. The unexplained `limit` parameter and absent error behavior are the remaining gaps, but nothing critical 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?

Schema coverage is only 33% — only `team` is documented ("its id or slug"), while `limit` and `cursor` have no schema description. The description partially compensates by explaining cursor-based pagination ('follow members.nextCursor until null'), but says nothing about the meaning or default of `limit`, leaving one parameter undocumented in both places.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Read team metadata and members") and the follow-on sentences make the scope — one team's metadata, paginated member list, and pending invites — unmistakable. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the adjacent team_list or team_add_member siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

"Authenticated discovery permits nonmembers" tells the agent who may call it, which is useful gating context. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose team_show over team_list or team_add_member, so usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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