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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context beyond that: locations are referenced via team_additional_info's location_id, are set up separately, and may not exist. This helps an agent understand the data model and avoid invalid assumptions about creating locations.

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 sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the important caveat about no self-service creation is stated in a second sentence without bloating the description.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the source, the fields returned, the possibility of no location being set, and the lack of a creation endpoint. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state what happens when no location is set (e.g., empty result vs. null), especially since there is no output schema.

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 team_id already has a clear description ('Id of the team.'). The tool description adds background about location_id but does not materially change the meaning of the single parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly says 'Read the physical location details linked to a team's additional-info profile' and lists the specific fields (street, city, state, zip). It uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from generic team_get or team_list tools.

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 description clearly frames this as a read-only lookup for physical location and warns that there is no self-service creation path, which prevents an agent from attempting a mutation. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for when location details are not needed or when creating a location is required.

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