getTeamDetails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior regarding different parameter usage and the type of information returned, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 appropriately sized with two main sentences and a structured Args section. The information is front-loaded with the purpose first, followed by usage notes and parameter details. Minor improvement could be made by integrating the Args section more seamlessly.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does well by explaining parameter semantics and usage context. It could be more complete by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or authentication, but the output schema reduces the burden.

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 description must compensate. It provides detailed semantic information for all three parameters: team_id as 'DX team ID', reference_id as 'internal reference ID in your organization', and team_emails as 'comma separated list of team members' email addresses'. This fully explains parameter meanings beyond the bare schema.

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 the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'details for an individual team', making the purpose specific. It distinguishes between different search methods but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'listTeams' or 'getEntityDetails', which would require 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 description provides clear context on when to use different parameters (team_id/reference_id vs team_emails) and what information each returns. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listTeams' or 'getEntityDetails', which would be needed for a 5.

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