Get Team

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

With readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false already declared, the safety profile is covered by annotations, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds nothing beyond them, however: no note on what happens with an unknown id, whether the id may be a slug or UUID in practice, or what the `include` expansion does to the payload.

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 six-word sentence with no filler and the key scoping detail ("by id") front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme terseness edges toward under-specification rather than tight structure.

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?

The tool is simple, an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile, which makes a short description defensible. Still, the vague `include` semantics ("comma separated if needed. eg: users") are not resolved anywhere, and an agent has no hint about what the expansion adds.

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 100%, so both `id` (with UUID-or-slug anyOf and the explicit "no team_id argument" note) and `include` are already fully documented in the schema. The description's "by id" merely echoes that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Retrieves") and resource ("a specific team") scoped by id, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It makes no attempt to differentiate from the obvious siblings list_teams, update_team, or create_team, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 no when-to-use guidance: it never says to prefer this over list_teams when the id is already known, nor does it state any prerequisite such as the team existing. The routing signal is only inferable from the phrase "by id".

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