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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: results are anonymous, rotate daily, are intentionally incomplete, and names/members are gated behind a mutual €30-per-side handshake.

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 description is short and front-loads the core preview behavior before explaining the brief-first and handshake gating. Some phrasing such as 'specimens', 'supply', and 'handshake' is evocative but slightly less precise than it could be.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does explain the key return composition: two anonymous teams and a supply size, not the full board. It also explains the privacy and payment gating, though exact returned fields are still somewhat implicit.

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?

With zero input parameters, there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline score for a no-parameter tool is appropriate here.

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 clearly states this previews a limited anonymous sample of two vetted teams plus the size of the supply, and explicitly says it never returns the whole board. It is more specific than the name/title alone, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool or contrast itself with one.

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?

It implies when the tool is useful by explaining that the board is brief-first and full team details require a draft brief and handshake. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like directory_capabilities, match_brief, or list_open_briefs.

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