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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by noting the included related data (members, campaigns, goals) and the Scale plan requirement. It stops short of describing error behavior or pagination, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and returned scope are front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the low complexity, single required parameter, 100% schema coverage, and rich read-only annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains what is returned and the plan prerequisite without needing an output schema.

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 sole parameter teamId is documented as 'The team id' in the schema. The description does not add syntax, format, or validation details beyond the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 Affiliate Team.' It also clarifies the returned scope by mentioning members, campaigns, and goals, which helps distinguish this from list_teams. However, it does not explicitly name or compare against sibling tools.

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 only usage-related information is the prerequisite 'Requires the Scale plan.' There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_teams, get_campaign, or other related tools. The agent must infer that a teamId is needed to fetch a single team.

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