vk_get_teams_e326281be9a8

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication is required, that path/query parameters are top-level fields, accepts camelCase/snake_case aliases, and does not usually require a request body. This provides meaningful operational context beyond a simple GET, though it omits details about response format or error handling.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Gets one team'), and every sentence adds useful context: the REST endpoint, the ID-based retrieval, body requirement, parameter naming aliases, and authentication. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple single-parameter GET with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the operation, auth requirement, parameter style, and body expectations. It stops short of detailing response structure or failure modes, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, this is a minor 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 schema already describes the 'id' parameter as 'Team ID Required.' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that the tool returns a team by ID but adds little new semantic meaning. It does mention aliases for parameter names, which is a minor addition, but the core parameter meaning is already clear from the schema.

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 'Gets one team' and 'Returns a team by its ID', specifying the verb and resource. It also identifies the underlying REST endpoint (GET /teams/{id}), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from list/delete/create operations.

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 when to use it (when retrieving a single team by ID) but does not explicitly compare it to sibling tools or state exclusions. It adds a few usage notes like 'This endpoint does not usually require a request body' and mentions authentication, but lacks clear alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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