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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description is only expected to add context. It does contribute the fact that all fields are returned in full and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about not-found behavior, permissions, or response envelope.

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; the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the API endpoint detail. 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 simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema required, this is nearly complete. The only modest gap is not specifying the failure case for a nonexistent id or that the response is a single object rather than a list.

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% for the single team_id parameter, including a numeric pattern, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format or sourcing guidance (e.g. where to obtain a team id).

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 by id') plus the scope of the return ('with all its fields'), which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_teams family. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so sibling differentiation is only implicit through the get_/list_ naming convention.

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?

'by id' implies this is the single-record lookup rather than the list endpoint, so the usage context is inferable from the sibling naming. However, no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of galaxydigital_list_teams as the alternative, and no note about what happens if the id is unknown.

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