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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds only the raw endpoint path and no behavior beyond the name — no note on error behavior for missing ids, whether the call is rate limited, or what the team object contains.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the purpose ahead of the endpoint detail, with no filler. It is, however, terse to the point of leaving usage and output shape unstated.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not indicate what a team record contains.

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 team_id field already explains it comes from pobuca_list_teams. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch a single team by id, with the underlying endpoint for confirmation. It implicitly contrasts with list_teams via 'One team', but never names the sibling that fetches many, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus pobuca_list_teams, pobuca_list_team_members, or other get_* siblings. The only hint is that a team_id is required, which the schema already states.

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