plan_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds that results are grouped by team and carry position and status, which is useful since no output schema exists. It says nothing about permissions, whether the plan must be active/published, or the openWorldHint implication that data may come from external systems.

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?

A single short sentence with the salient grouping and field detail front-loaded; no filler. It is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description must do the heavy lifting, and it only partially does: the return shape is sketched, but both required parameters are undocumented and there is no usage context. An agent could guess plan_id but has no basis for supplying service_type_id.

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% and both parameters are required, so the description carries the full burden – yet it never explains what plan_id or service_type_id are, or how the latter scopes the result. 'One of your plans' only loosely gestures at plan_id and leaves service_type_id completely unexplained.

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 states a specific resource and scope – the team roster for a given plan, including position and status – which is enough to distinguish it from list-style siblings like team_contacts or my_schedule. It is written as a noun phrase describing the return rather than an action verb, and it never names or contrasts with a sibling tool.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as my_schedule or team_contacts, which occupy adjacent roster/schedule territory. 'One of your plans' implies the caller must already know a plan id, but the condition for choosing this tool over siblings is left entirely to inference.

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