get_teams_for_opp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns up to 25 most-recent teams, a key behavioral trait. However, it omits authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no teams exist, which would enhance 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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then provide a practical use case. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or verbosity.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the single required parameter opp_id is not described, and the schema coverage is 0%. The description provides adequate behavioral context but leaves a gap in parameter understanding, which is incomplete for a tool with one parameter.

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% for the single parameter opp_id, and the description does not describe its meaning or format. The description focuses on the output, not the input. To compensate for the lack of schema description, it should clarify that opp_id is the opportunity identifier, which it fails to do.

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 that the tool returns teams pursuing a given opportunity, specifies the limit of up to 25 most-recent teams, and provides a concrete use case. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like find_teams or get_team by focusing on teams for a specific opportunity.

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 explicitly advises using this tool before forming a new team, with a specific condition about NAICS gaps. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context and sibling list imply when not to use it, such as when looking for all teams or specific team details.

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