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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-open-world write, so the description's job is lighter. It still adds real context beyond the annotations: the user becomes organiser, an existing player card is reused, and an invite link is returned. Gaps remain around failure modes (duplicate squad) and limits, keeping it at 4.

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 sentences with no filler; the core action and role are front-loaded, and the confirmation instruction follows naturally.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return value (invite link for the group chat). Optional parameters and error conditions are unaddressed, but nothing essential for calling the tool correctly 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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description only references 'name and size' (aSide) as things to confirm, adding marginal meaning and omitting locale, timezone, and crestColor. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a new Squadcard squad'), names the acting role (user as organiser) and the derived output (invite link). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_squad, list_squads, and join_squad.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow step: 'Confirm the name and size with the user first.' It does not, however, name an alternative or state when not to create (e.g. when the user should join_squad instead), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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