get_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a 'full profile' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes a 'full profile' (e.g., includes members, settings). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by parameter details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), one parameter with good semantic coverage in the description, and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameter usage, and hints at prerequisites. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or errors, which would enhance completeness for a read operation.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'id' is 'Required. The unique identifier of the team' and provides guidance on how to obtain IDs via 'Lookup Teams endpoint'. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions, making parameter usage clear and actionable.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns the full profile of the specified team' with the verb 'returns' and resource 'team profile'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'lookup_teams' (which likely lists teams) and 'get_my_active_team' (which targets a specific team without an ID parameter). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_team_members', which might overlap in functionality.

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 implies usage by specifying 'The ID of the team is the only valid unique identifier' and references 'Lookup Teams endpoint' for finding IDs, suggesting this tool is for retrieving details after identifying a team. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like 'get_my_active_team' or 'lookup_teams', leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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