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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious operational constraint, the Scale plan requirement, plus an indication of what is returned (targets with current-period progress), which is real value beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action and the returned content before the prerequisite. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned content and a plan gate. The only gap is that it never states behavior when the team has no targets or how progress is scoped to the current period.

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 a single required teamId parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the id format or scope, so the baseline of 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 ('List a team's targets') plus the returned content ('current-period progress'), which separates it from list_teams and the other list_* siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating at the highest level.

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?

'Requires the Scale plan' is a genuine prerequisite that tells the agent when the call will fail rather than when to choose it. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over other listing tools or on what to do if the plan requirement is unmet, leaving usage largely implied.

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