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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, closed-world read, so the bar is lower; the description goes further by naming three returned fields and explaining what each means for rollback. It still doesn't characterize the rest of the returned group object, but the key behavioral context is supplied.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the field-level context that justifies the call. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single-parameter read with full annotation coverage, the definition is nearly sufficient; the only gap is that no output schema exists and the description names just three return fields rather than sketching the whole group payload. That is a minor shortfall for such a simple getter.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Policy group ID"), so the schema carries the semantics and baseline 3 applies. The description only restates "by ID" and adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond the UUID pattern already declared.

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 a single policy group by ID" gives a specific verb (get), resource (policy group), and scope (single, by ID), which cleanly separates it from lexq_groups_list, lexq_groups_update, and lexq_groups_create. An agent can pick it out without opening the 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 description implies a usage path by tying currentVersionId/currentDeploymentId to lexq_deploy_rollback, hinting this is the lookup step before a rollback. It never states when to prefer it over lexq_groups_list or any exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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