Get Team

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations do not carry: the required OAuth scope organizations:read. It says nothing further about errors or return shape.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding. It loses a point only because the opening sentence duplicates the title instead of using that space for the resource detail the description lacks.

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 two-parameter, single-resource read with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: the annotations cover risk and the schema covers inputs. It never says what a team record contains or what the UUID maps to, leaving an agent to infer the return payload.

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% (team_uuid and account both documented, including the non-obvious note that account selects credentials rather than an organization URI). The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema is correct.

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?

"Get Team" merely restates the tool name/title, and "Reads Calendly data" is a generic filler phrase that applies to dozens of siblings. Nothing states that this retrieves a single team's details by UUID, nor how it differs from list_teams or get_group.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as list_teams (for enumeration) or get_group (for group-level data). The only prerequisite-like detail is the required scope, which hints at permissions but not at selection conditions.

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