aircall_get_team

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true, the description aligns by indicating a read operation. It adds useful context about the response including members and numbers, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or potential errors. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One concise sentence front-loaded with the action and resource, then immediately specifying what is included. No filler or redundant wording.

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 getter with one parameter, readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains purpose and result content. It is complete enough without needing to explain return format or side effects.

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 parameter (team_id described as 'The team ID'). The description does not add deeper parameter semantics, so the schema carries the meaning; 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific team') and adds what is included ('all members and numbers'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like aircall_list_teams by emphasizing 'specific team'.

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 implies when to use it (when you need details of a specific team, implying you have a team_id), but does not explicitly mention alternatives, such as aircall_list_teams for listing all teams, or any exclusions.

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