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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what is returned (name, slug, branding, caller's role) with no output schema available, though it says nothing about error behavior for unknown or inaccessible team IDs.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place by naming the returned fields.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description gives enough: what it returns and that it is scoped to one team. Only a note on what happens with an invalid or unauthorized teamId 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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('Team, from list_teams.'). The description adds no further meaning about teamId, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb ('Show') plus resource ('one team') and an enumeration of the fields returned. The contrast with list_teams is implicit in 'one team' but no sibling is named, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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: 'one team' suggests this is the single-record lookup counterpart to list_teams, but the description never says when to prefer this over list_teams or get_organization. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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