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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses the exact shape of the payload (resolved flag, complete backtraces with file/function/line/column, context, last deploy, notice counts) and names the underlying API endpoint. It omits pagination/size behavior for the potentially large notice list, which keeps it short of 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?

The purpose and the full field inventory are front-loaded into one dense sentence, followed by the endpoint reference. Every clause carries information, though the long comma-separated field list is heavier to parse than necessary.

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's field enumeration is what tells the agent what comes back, and it covers the returned data thoroughly. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases (volume of notices, any truncation), which are minor for a read-only lookup.

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% – both project_id and group_id are already documented in the schema, including sourcing hints (from airbrake_list_groups / airbrake_list_projects). The description only restates them inside the API path template, adding no new parameter semantics. 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 (Get) and resource (one error group) with the scope made explicit ('in full'), then enumerates exactly what 'full' means. This clearly separates it from airbrake_list_groups (many groups) and airbrake_get_group_stats (aggregates only).

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?

Usage is implied: fetch the complete detail of a single group when you already have its id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to siblings like airbrake_get_group_stats or airbrake_list_groups as alternatives, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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