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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered and the description needn't repeat it. The description adds some useful texture — notably that 'matching' surfaces inferred 'likely emails' — but says nothing about scope limits, whether unmatched results are exhaustive, or how the modes differ in volume.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the primary mode ('show teams'). The four-way parenthetical list makes it dense and slightly run-on, but every clause adds a distinct mode rather than repeating itself.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only profile. With one optional parameter whose values are all defined in the description, the definition is essentially complete; only cross-routing to the sibling setters is missing.

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 description coverage is 0% and the 'show' property has no description, so the description must carry semantics — and it does, by defining each of the four valid values (teams, matching, contracts, privacy) in the same order as the schema pattern. It does not name the default of 'teams', but the schema supplies that.

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?

It uses a specific verb ('show') and then enumerates four concrete data views with their contents — team/cost-center membership, manager assignment, unmatched tool names with likely emails, per-tool spend, and naming conventions. That is far more specific than a generic listing tool. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like list_members, match_person, or set_contract, so an agent still has to infer boundaries.

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 four parenthetical expansions imply when each mode is appropriate, which is enough to pick a value. However there is no explicit guidance such as 'use this for read-only inspection; use set_team/set_team_manager/set_privacy to change anything', nor any exclusion of overlapping siblings like list_members or match_person.

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