Get team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the hint that member accounts are bundled into the result; it says nothing about failure modes (unknown teamId), permissions, or the shape/size of the membership list, which would genuinely help for an open-world read.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than concise: no verb, no sentence structure, and the key scoping fact (one team, identified by teamId) is implied rather than front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema and no parameter docs, the description should at minimum say it fetches a team by ID and what the membership payload contains. Neither is present, so an agent cannot fully predict inputs or outputs from the definition.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'teamId' is completely undocumented — the description never mentions it, its format, or where to obtain one. With exactly one parameter, an extra clause would have been cheap, so the omission is a real gap rather than a baseline case.

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 fragment 'One team with its member accounts' gestures at retrieving a single team plus its members, but never states a verb and essentially restates the name 'get_team'. It does add one real detail (members are included), which barely lifts it above pure tautology, and it offers no differentiation from siblings like list_teams or get_organization.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. a teamId being required), and no mention of the very plausible alternatives in the sibling set (list_teams for enumeration, get_organization for org-level data, get_account for member lookups). The agent must infer everything.

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