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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint, so the description carries the rest and does: per-field authorization (TEAMS_READ, plus MEETINGS_READ for activeMeetings and ORGS_READ for organization) tells the agent exactly what the call will fail without, and the return enumeration discloses that this is an aggregated, multi-entity read. That is substantive context 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?

Front-loaded with the return payload, then the resolver mapping, then permissions — no filler. The GraphQL resolver line is denser than prose but earns its place given the parabol_graphql/parabol_query siblings.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensating by enumerating the returned entities is exactly what an agent needs. With the single required param documented at 100% and permissions spelled out, nothing material is missing for a one-parameter read.

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 single teamId parameter is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format or sourcing detail (e.g., where to obtain the id) beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Fetch one team by id') with an explicit enumeration of what is returned (metadata, members with their user, active meetings, organization). The singular 'one team' cleanly separates it from list_teams and the surrounding get_* siblings.

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 'one team by id' scoping makes the usage condition clear relative to list_teams/list_team_members, and it names the underlying resolver for parity with parabol_graphql. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named alternative for the meeting/org sub-resources it inlines (get_meeting, get_organization).

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