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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read, lowering the bar. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /v3/teams/{teamId}), which corroborates a single-resource fetch, but discloses nothing further about error behavior or return shape.

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 the core action front-loaded and no filler. The endpoint citation is marginally redundant for an agent but does aid API mapping, so it still earns its place.

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-resource read tool with an annotations-declared safety profile, one fully documented parameter, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs. Only the lack of routing guidance against list_teams keeps it from being complete.

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 there is only one parameter, so the schema fully documents teamId. The phrase 'by its id' merely restates the parameter and adds no format or source-of-id detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single team by its id'), and the word 'single' implicitly contrasts with squadcast_list_teams. It is clear, but it never names the sibling list tool to sharpen the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should use this when it already has a team id, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative (e.g. squadcast_list_teams for discovery) is named.

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