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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description carries real added value by naming three returned fields and explaining what each means downstream (rollback inputs, restored version name). It doesn't cover error behavior for an unknown groupId or any other returned fields, so not a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the retrieval action front-loaded and the downstream-usage note second. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the meaningful return fields, which is the main gap a read tool leaves. It stops short of covering the full response shape or failure modes, but for a one-parameter read that is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 100% for the single groupId parameter, which already documents it as a UUID 'Policy group ID'. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond 'by ID', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get a single policy group by ID'), and 'single' plus 'by ID' implicitly contrasts with lexq_groups_list. An agent can distinguish it from the list/create/update/delete siblings without opening any schema.

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 reference to lexq_deploy_rollback tells the agent the concrete situation in which this tool's output matters (retrieving version/deployment IDs before a rollback). No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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