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

The description explicitly states it 'Renews queue leases for members,' which is a state-changing side effect, contradicting the annotation readOnlyHint: true. The description otherwise discloses useful behavioral details (no agent keys, non-attestation), but the direct contradiction with the annotation is severe and triggers the annotation contradiction rule.

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?

The description is four tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core read behavior, then adds the lease-renewal side effect, a security relevant note ('Returns no agent keys'), and an important semantic caveat about team membership. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key return contents, operational cadence, and side effects. Minor gaps include not addressing how the optional team_key defaults and not routing among the many team-related siblings, but overall it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter team_key, including a pattern and a security warning ('Never include it in public text'), so the description does not need to add much. The description itself does not mention the parameter, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('team status') and the read operation, enumerating specific outputs: 'team members, their messaging and Pro status, pending invitation counts and up to 50 confirmed matches.' It is distinct from generic status tools by its detail, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like speedbot_team_queue or speedbot_teams, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 description gives clear usage context: it is a read/status polling tool that 'Renews queue leases for members, allowing one coordinator poll every 15 seconds.' This tells the agent when to use it operationally, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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