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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real context beyond them: that member lists can include deactivated org members, a data-quality caveat an agent would not otherwise know. It does not add pagination or return-shape details, but the caveat is meaningful.

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 zero padding; the core purpose (full team detail plus members) is front-loaded, followed by the noteworthy member caveat and the alternative pointer. Every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (team detail and member records with fields). The only real gap is the undocumented teamId format, which keeps it short of full completeness.

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 teamId is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description never explains what identifier form teamId takes (opaque ID, slug, name) or where to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: retrieves full detail for one team, explicitly including all members and the member fields returned (userId, name, role). This distinguishes it from list_teams (enumerate) and list_team_members (members only), though it never names those siblings directly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Points to list_org_members as the alternative when activity flags are needed, which is genuine routing guidance for a sub-case. However, it never states the primary when-to-use condition or contrasts with list_team_members/list_teams, so the agent must infer the main selection logic.

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