get_team_config

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's genuine contribution is the `team:read` scope requirement, which annotations do not express; however it says nothing about what the returned configuration comprises or whether it is cached/eventually consistent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded, with no filler. The first sentence largely restates the title, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it only gestures at it ("team settings and coaching context") without listing the kinds of fields returned. For a simple zero-parameter read this is tolerable but leaves a real gap.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly signals there are no filtering or selection options.

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 phrase "Team settings and coaching context" is a noun phrase identical to the annotation title, so it identifies the resource but does not state a verb (get/retrieve) or describe what the returned settings actually contain. The tool name supplies the verb, and the pairing with the sibling `update_team_config` implicitly frames this as the read counterpart, but the description itself does no differentiating work.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus `get_me`, `get_billing_status`, or `update_team_config`. The only contextual signal is the required scope, which is an authorization prerequisite rather than usage guidance.

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