Get Team

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

The description adds useful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly listing the returned fields (name, description, decoration, members, timestamps) and specifying the GET method. This tells the agent what to expect from the response without an output schema, though it doesn't disclose other behaviors like rate limits or auth (which may be irrelevant for a simple read).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that starts with the endpoint and follows with the action and return fields. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff, and it is easy to parse quickly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of return fields is essential and sufficiently complete for a single-resource read tool. The one-parameter input is fully covered by the schema, and the description provides all necessary context: endpoint, action, field, and expected response content.

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?

The input schema already documents the 'id' parameter comprehensively (type, range, required, description). The description merely repeats that it retrieves by ID, adding no new parameter-level semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and clearly specifies the resource ('a single team by its unique ID'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_teams, update_team, and delete_team. It also identifies the HTTP method and endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage: call this when you have a team ID and need a single team's details. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., gorgias_list_teams for listing all teams), so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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