intercom_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a fallback behavior ('managed-team discovery'), which is legitimate context beyond annotations, but it is vague and unexplained.

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?

Two short sentences with the list/inspect distinction front-loaded. Efficient, though the trailing fallback clause is opaque and adds little clarity per word.

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?

With no output schema and safety already covered by annotations, the description is serviceable but leaves the fallback mechanism and the format of returned team data unexplained. An agent can call it, but cannot predict the response shape or the fallback's implications.

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%, so the schema gives no meaning for 'team' beyond 'string'. The description partially compensates by saying inspection is 'by name', implying the parameter is a team name rather than an ID, but it remains thin for a low-coverage parameter.

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?

States a clear verb (Show/inspect) and resource (named task teams), and covers both modes: listing all teams or inspecting one by name. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like intercom_list or intercom_whoami, so it stops short of a 5.

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 two modes imply usage – omit the parameter to list, supply a name to inspect – but this is left to inference rather than stated. No alternatives among the sibling tools are named, and 'Falls back to managed-team discovery' describes behavior rather than when to use the tool.

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