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

The annotation readOnlyHint already describes the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral over that, e.g., no mention of not-found behavior, error responses, or any other edge cases. It simply repeats the 'get' conceptual, so it adds little beyond annotations.

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?

One short sentence with no excess, the purpose is front-loaded and immediately clear. Perfect for a tool this simple.

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 extremely simple: a single parameter, a read-only annotation, no output schema needed. The description covers all that is required to call it, and nothing additional is needed to be parsed beyond the simplicity.

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% for the single parameter groupId, which has a clear description and strong validation. The description's 'by ID' adds only a lexical echo, no deeper semantic than the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('single policy group'), and key discriminator ('by ID'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling create/update/delete/list/reorder group tools.

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 clearly implies when to use: when you need one group and know its ID. The sibling list tool covers the alternative, but this description does not explicitly state 'use lexq_groups_list instead for multiple groups', so it loses the point for explicit when-not.

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