get_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description says 'Get team details by ID,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what 'details' means (e.g., which fields are returned), whether the tool might fail for invalid IDs, or any side effects. Since there is an output schema (not shown in description but noted in signals), the lack of explicit detail is partially mitigated, but the description itself is minimal for a tool with no 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 description is a single, short sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. While it is concise, it could add a tiny bit more context (e.g., 'including name, timezone, and members') without becoming verbose, but as-is it earns a high score for efficiency.

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 the complexity (1 required parameter, output schema present) and the signals, the description is adequate but minimal. The output schema may provide the return structure, so the description doesn't need to list fields, but it could mention common use cases or error scenarios. The sibling tools suggest a rich API, and for a simple 'get by ID' tool, this is just barely sufficient.

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 has 100% description coverage: team_id is described as 'Team ID' and is the only required parameter. The description adds that the tool retrieves 'team details' using this ID, which reinforces the parameter's role but does not add much beyond what the schema already provides. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description's clarity on the parameter's use nudges it to 4.

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 the verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('team details') and the required parameter 'Team ID' is explicitly mentioned, making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate 'team' from the many other tools that operate on teams (e.g., list_teams, update_team, delete_team), which would help the agent select among siblings. The description is otherwise unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_teams (which retrieves all teams) or get_team_event_type (which retrieves event types for a team). The description gives no prerequisites, context for typical use, or warnings. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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