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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the license gate and the sharing side effect, which is real value, but says nothing about whether an existing hash is overwritten, entry expiry, or what a successful store returns.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the license prerequisite trailing. There is no filler, though the license note could be folded in more tightly.

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 four-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent and the licensing gate but not overwrite semantics or the response shape. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, so hash, type, value, and tokens_saved are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or defaulting guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'stores a distilled result in the shared team cache.' Combined with the tool name, an agent can immediately tell this is the write counterpart to team_cache_lookup. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

It supplies a prerequisite ('Requires Team license') and an implicit rationale ('so teammates reuse it'), which hints at when to use it. But it never states when to prefer team_cache_lookup or when not to write, leaving the read-vs-write routing to inference.

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