get_mpa_team_association

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and mostly delivers: it specifies the returned MpaTeamAssociation fields, the conditional MpaStatus block, and the state values including settling states. It does not describe error behavior or explicitly confirm no side effects, but the 'get' semantics and returned-state detail provide solid transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage, return shape, and parameter details. Every section earns its place and there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description compensates by documenting return values in detail. It covers purpose, usage, parameter, and output. The only notable gap is the representation when no MPA association exists, which an agent checking gating status would need to interpret.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the action parameter. It does: 'The operation to inspect' plus a concrete example, IMPORT_ROOT_PUBLIC_KEY_CERTIFICATE. It stops short of enumerating allowed values or where to find them, but it adds meaning the bare string schema lacks.

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 states a concrete verb ('check') and a specific resource (MPA team association), and identifies the exact questions answered: whether an operation is under MPA, which team approves, and whether changes are settling. This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like associate_mpa_team and disassociate_mpa_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?

'Use it before an import that may be gated, and when auditing dual control' gives concrete scenarios for calling this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the read-only nature and sibling set make the intended context clear.

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