Get team statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the contents of the result payload, which is useful, but says nothing about the time window used for daily/weekly/monthly active users, scoping rules, or cost/rate behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumerating clause is doing real work by spelling out return fields. It could be tighter only by grouping the metric list.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage this is nearly complete, and the metric enumeration partly compensates for the absence of an output schema. The remaining gap is that 'daily/weekly/monthly active users' windows and the meaning of an empty default teamName are never explained.

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 100% and the single parameter's description already notes it is required and how to discover valid values. The description adds no further meaning about teamName, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Retrieves team statistics') and enumerates the metrics returned, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish it from close siblings such as esa_get_team_members or esa_get_team_comments, which could plausibly return overlapping-looking counts.

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 contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative. The only routing hint ('Use esa_get_teams first to see available teams') lives in the input schema, not in the description, so the narrative guidance is effectively absent.

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