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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent, not read-only), so the description only needs to add context. It does — the account must already have a Vivere login, and joining a team with pages consumes a seat, which is a real side effect an agent should surface before calling.

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, front-loaded with the action, and each carries information the schema and annotations do not. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is largely sufficient. Minor gaps remain: the meaning of 'takes a seat' (billing/quota implications) is not spelled out, and no role or invitation behavior is mentioned.

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% with only two required parameters, so the schema already documents both. The phrase 'account of a person with a Vivere login' adds a small constraint on what email is valid, but nothing about team_id beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource — adding a person's existing Vivere login account to a team — which cleanly separates it from remove_team_member and create_team. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with them, so it stops just short of 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?

Usage is implied by the name and the note about seats, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or exclusion against alternatives such as create_team or remove_team_member. No prerequisites about permissions or required role are given.

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