Api teams retrieve

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them – that unauthorized related fields are masked in the response – but does not say which fields, under what permission conditions, or whether masking is silent or flagged.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though what it omits (the resource itself) is not an issue of verbosity but of completeness.

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-record fetch with no output schema, the description should identify the resource and give a sense of what the returned object contains. It discloses masking but leaves the subject of the lookup entirely unspecified, so an agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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 0% and the single required parameter (id) is never mentioned in the description. With no schema text to lean on, the description should at least state that the id identifies a team/object, and it does not.

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 only says "Return a single object" – it never names the resource (a team), so the purpose is carried entirely by the tool name and title. It edges past pure tautology only because of the masking note, but an agent reading the description alone cannot tell what it fetches.

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 indication of when to use this versus the many sibling read tools for the same resource (teams_list, teams_object_retrieve, teams_cascade_info_retrieve). The only implied cue is the required id, which is already in the schema.

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