Contract Testing: Admin Get Team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safe read nature is well-established. The description adds no new behavioral details beyond 'Retrieve details,' missing potential context like error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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 very brief (one sentence plus metadata). It places the key purpose first, which is helpful. The parameter listing is redundant with the schema but not overly verbose. Could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient.

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 get tool with one parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the returned object is 'team details,' though it doesn't list exact fields. Given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient but could mention common use cases or error states.

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 100% with one parameter teamId. The description repeats the schema's parameter description ('UUID of the team') without adding extra semantic value or examples. Baseline 3 applies since schema already covers the parameter; description does not enhance it.

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 clearly states 'Retrieve details for a specific team by UUID (admin).' It uses a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (team details), with explicit scope (admin) and method (by UUID). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like list_teams and get_team_user.

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 includes 'Toolset: Admin' which implies admin context, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like contract-testing_admin_list_teams could be confused without further context. Usage is implied by name and description, but not explicitly stated.

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