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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful substance beyond that by disclosing that the response includes permission scope ('what that role may do') and full membership data, but it says nothing about auth failure modes or whether results are cached when the key rotates.

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, front-loaded with the identity payload and followed by the downstream team: convention. The first sentence is a dense comma-chained list that is slightly taxing to parse, but every clause names a real return field and nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the full burden of describing return contents, and it does so exhaustively across all six response facets. Combined with the zero-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, but the only parameter-adjacent content is a note about the team: parameter on OTHER tools rather than this one's input. It is genuinely helpful context, yet it describes a sibling convention instead of sharpening this tool's (nonexistent) inputs, so it lands just below baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('who this connection is') and enumerates exactly what is returned: the person behind the API key (name, email), the acting team, key label and role plus what that role permits, the plan, and all team memberships with roles. No sibling tool overlaps with this identity-resolution purpose, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

It supplies clear context for use: because every other tool accepts team: "<name or id>", this tool is the way to discover which teams are actionable and under what condition ('when the key was made in the person's own team'). It stops short of an explicit 'call this before list_apps/start_check' directive or any exclusion, which keeps it from a 5.

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