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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds value by claiming the tool is 'free' (no cost) and explains that the 'days' parameter controls activity history window. It does not contradict annotations. While it could mention pagination or error behavior, the output schema exists to document return details, and the provided context is sufficient for a read-only overview tool.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: first state the output and components, second give usage guidance, third add behavioral note and parameter hint. No redundant or extraneous information. Key information is front-loaded in the first sentence, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 tool with moderate complexity (returning multiple structured components) and an existing output schema, the description covers everything needed: what is returned (members, ideas, credit usage, activity), when to use it (briefing before actions), how to control scope (days parameter), and safety (read-only, free). No critical information is missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool over alternatives.

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%—both parameters have clear descriptions in the input schema. The description adds only a rephrasing for 'days' ('set days to control how much activity history is included'), which is synonymous with the schema. No additional meaning or context is provided for 'teamId'. Thus the description contributes minimal value beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score.

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 the tool returns a 'complete overview of a team' listing specific components (members, ideas, credit usage, recent activity). This distinguishes it from numerous sibling get_* tools that are more narrowly focused (e.g., get_achievements, get_team_benchmarks). The explicit verb 'Return' and resource 'overview of a team' make the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use it to brief yourself on a team before acting on its behalf.' This clearly indicates when to invoke the tool. It also notes 'Read-only and free,' implying safe routine use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative sibling tools for more specific needs, leaving room for ambiguity in a large sibling set.

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