Get Team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying what is not returned (personal profiles, internal identifiers) and clarifying the meaning of verificationStatus, which is useful behavioral context.

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 sentences, all informative, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. No filler or redundancy; each sentence contributes a distinct piece of information (what it fetches, verification meaning, and non-returned data).

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description rounds out the picture by explaining verification semantics and data exclusions. No essential information is missing for a read-only fetch tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description's note about environment variables (API key vs campaign ID) adds relevant configuration context beyond the empty 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Fetch the team bound to the API key or OAuth connection." This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaign or list_campaigns, even without naming an alternative.

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 gives useful context by explaining that verificationStatus must be VERIFIED before a program can email participants, implying when this tool is relevant. It also states the credential requirements (requires API key, not campaign ID), which helps route usage, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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