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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond that: results are scoped per team and pre-filtered on three eligibility criteria, which tells the agent the result set is already narrowed and needs no client-side filtering.

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?

A single dense sentence with the scope (per team) front-loaded and the filter criteria trailing. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the title. It is a sentence fragment, which is stylistically loose but not costly.

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 parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is returned, per what grouping, and under which eligibility conditions. Only the concrete shape of the return (grouped by team object vs. flat list) is left implicit, which is a minor gap for a zero-input tool.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed — the signed-in person and their teams supply the implicit context.

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?

States a specific resource (open briefs) and a precise scope: per team of the signed-in person, filtered to briefs still pitchable. The three qualifying conditions (not yet pitched, pitch slots left, language match) make it distinguishable from list_open_briefs and read_my_pitches. It does not explicitly name those 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?

The framing ('briefs that team can still pitch on') implies the use case — finding what to pitch — but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_open_briefs or read_my_pitches, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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