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, and destructiveHint=false, covering the main safety profile. The description adds only the admin toolset and single-team scope; it does not add auth, rate-limit, or response-behavior context beyond the 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?

The operation is front-loaded and the overall description is short. However, the parameters block largely duplicates the input schema, so not every line earns its place, though the redundancy is minor.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent admin lookup, the description is sufficient for invocation. It does not specify the exact team fields returned or explicitly state admin credential requirements, but the low complexity and rich annotations make that gap minor.

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% and the description simply restates the teamId parameter's type, requiredness, and UUID meaning. No additional parameter semantics or format guidance is provided beyond the schema.

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 specific operation ('Retrieve details'), a specific resource ('a specific team'), and the identifying key ('by UUID'). It also marks the admin scope, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like admin_list_teams or team-user lookups.

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 clearly conveys that this is the admin-level single-team lookup by UUID, which is the selecting context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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