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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the exact GraphQL query path (viewer.team(teamId)) and the permission scopes required (TEAMS_READ, plus conditional MEETINGS_READ and ORGS_READ). It also exposes what data will be included in the result, which is helpful behavioral context.

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 compact: the first sentence communicates the core action and result content, and the second adds the essential GraphQL and permission context. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With a single well-documented parameter, readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description carries the full responsibility for return-value context. It does so by explicitly listing the included sub-resources and the permission prerequisites, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The only parameter, teamId, has full schema description coverage with 'The team id.' The description adds nothing semantically beyond the schema because it only refers to 'by id' without giving format, example, or source guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one team by id'. It further defines the scope by enumerating the returned data (metadata, team members with each member's user, active meetings, and organization), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_teams, get_meeting, and get_organization.

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 clearly frames when to use this tool: when you need a single team and its related members, meetings, and organization. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the id-based singular scope and the embedded permission requirements provide clear contextual guidance.

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