growsurf_get_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond annotations: the verificationStatus=VERIFIED semantic and its workflow implication (required before emailing participants), the exclusion of personal profiles/internal identifiers, and auth expectations.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero waste. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the verification-state caveat, the privacy exclusion, and auth requirements. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists and handles return values. For a 0-parameter read tool, the description covers the key operational facts: what it fetches, the verification prerequisite, what is NOT returned, and which credentials are needed. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema has nothing to document. With no params, the baseline is 4; the description correctly fills the semantic gap by explaining authentication context (API key vs OAuth) that shapes how input is resolved.

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 ('Fetch') + resource ('team') + scope ('bound to the API key or OAuth connection'). Among a long sibling list containing update_team and verification tools, this unambiguously identifies a read-only team retrieval operation.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites: requires GROWSURF_API_KEY and, notably, does NOT require GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID — a useful signal for when this tool applies versus campaign-scoped siblings. Doesn't name alternatives outright, but as the only 'get team' tool among siblings this is a minor gap.

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