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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the write-but-safe profile is covered. The description usefully adds the organiser-only authorization constraint, but says nothing about whether existing team assignments are overwritten, whether the result is persisted, or how randomness/fairness is seeded.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the core action and the authorization caveat front-loaded. Nothing is redundant or restated from the title.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials, but it omits what the tool returns (team rosters? assignment IDs?) and how it interacts with the closely related team-generation siblings. Those gaps matter because the tool mutates state and has ambiguous alternatives.

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% and the single parameter (squadId) is fully documented with a pointer to list_squads, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds only the soft context that the picked players come from the next game's roster; it introduces no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Pick two balanced teams') plus the player pool ('players who are in for the squad's next game'), so an agent understands the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling tools make_fair_teams and reshuffle_teams, leaving ambiguity about which one to call.

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 parenthetical '(organisers only)' is a genuine prerequisite that tells the agent who may invoke it. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over make_fair_teams or reshuffle_teams, which appear to overlap heavily in function.

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