Get Team Entry by ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the TEAM_DB_PATH environment requirement and summarizes what is returned, but says nothing about behavior when the entry is absent or how relationships are fetched.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the precondition appended. No filler, though the second sentence could carry more diagnostic value for the same length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the environment prerequisite is stated. Given four of five parameters are undocumented in the schema, the description could say more about them, but for a simple by-ID read it is close to adequate.

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 only 20% — entry_id, use_test_db, project_number, and include_relationships are undocumented. The description partially compensates by tying 'by ID' to entry_id and 'including relationships' to include_relationships (default true), but use_test_db, project_number, and the number|string duality of entry_id remain 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a specific team entry by ID') and names the payload ('full details including relationships and importance score'). The 'team_' prefix hints at team-DB scope, but the description never explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_entry_by_id, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied via the 'Requires TEAM_DB_PATH' precondition and the team-prefixed name. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of get_entry_by_id or team_search, and no guidance on lookup failure behavior.

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