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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful scope fact that members and objectives are bundled into the response, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or missing-team handling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized for the tool's simplicity, though it is arguably too terse to carry the parameter and routing information the schema omits.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns, which is close to sufficient. The unresolved teamId semantics are the main completeness gap.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for teamId, yet it never identifies the parameter or its expected format/origin. The only hint is the implied singular lookup, which leaves the agent guessing where a valid teamId comes from.

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 ('Get one team') and adds the composition of the response (members and objectives), which distinguishes it from list_teams and list_team_members. It does not, however, name or contrast with those siblings, so it falls short of 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_teams or list_team_members, nor any prerequisite such as needing a teamId from list_teams first. Usage is only weakly implied by 'one team.'

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