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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It proactively discloses what the response includes ('complete team data including members, slack channels, metadata, and whether it's backed by an identity provider group'), which provides meaningful behavioral context beyond 'retrieve'. The word 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation.

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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence. Every clause adds value: what the tool does, how the team is identified, and what data is returned. No redundant or verbose language.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and the description covers the key return contents. The schema covers both parameters, including the unusual 'context' parameter. It is complete enough for straightforward usage, though it could mention that the 'context' field should be used for rationale.

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 are described in the schema. The description's phrase 'by its tag or ID' parallels the schema's 'tag or CID' and adds no new semantic information. Therefore a baseline 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 clearly states a specific action ('Retrieve detailed information') and resource ('a specific team'), and enumerates the key data returned (members, slack channels, metadata, IdP group). The focus on 'team' distinguishes it from generic entity tools like getEntityDetails.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as getEntityDetails or other get_* tools. The description implies a general use case but does not provide exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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