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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile. The description adds only the REST endpoint (GET /teams/{id}), which is redundant with readOnlyHint and provides no additional behavioral context such as error handling, response contents, or authentication. Given the simple nature of the tool, the description is minimally adequate but adds no value beyond the annotation.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Get a single team by id') and adds the API endpoint. No filler or repetition.

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 this simple one-parameter read-only getter, the description is largely complete in stating the action and the key identifier. However, without an output schema, it does not explicitly mention the response format (e.g., the team object), so it is slightly incomplete. Overall, the complexity is low and the description suffices.

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 coverage is 100%: the sole parameter 'id' is described as 'The team id,' and the description also indicates retrieval by id. The description does not add new semantic detail (e.g., format, example, or special constraints), but the schema already fully documents the parameter. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('team') with a 'by id' qualifier, clearly distinguishing it from list_teams and other get_* tools. The REST endpoint reference reinforces the exact operation.

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 makes clear this is for retrieving a single team by ID, implying not for listing, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like aircall_list_teams or state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion/alternative guidance.

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