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

Annotations already declare this a safe read-only, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context absent from annotations: a hard ID-format rule and the interpretation caveat that missing data does not imply the team is nonexistent. It does not describe what the payload contains, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three compact clauses, each earning its place: purpose first, then the ID-format rule, then the interpretation caveat. No filler, no restating the tool name.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a description covering input format, most of what an agent needs is present. However, there is no output schema, and the description never indicates what a 'basic profile' contains, so return-value expectations are left to guesswork.

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 lone parameter is typed only as 'string'. The description fills that gap with the decisive constraint that team_id must be prefixed with 'catalog-team:', which is the key semantic needed to form a valid call. It does not add any other parameter nuance, so not a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('查询球队基础档案' – query a team's basic profile), which inherently separates it from sibling tools covering squads, availability, fixtures, and venues. It stops short of naming any sibling or stating explicit differentiation, so a 4 rather than 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?

Use is implied by the tool name and the 'basic profile' phrasing, and it gives an important precondition (team_id must begin with 'catalog-team:'), but it never states when to choose this over search_teams or get_team_squad, nor how to obtain a valid team_id. Guidance is present but inferential.

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