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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It adds only the REST mapping (GET /groups/{uuid}/), with nothing about error behavior for malformed ids or what a group payload contains.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The REST endpoint line is of marginal value to an agent but costs only a few words.

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?

A simple single-parameter read tool with read-only annotations, so little is strictly required. Still, with no output schema, the description could say what 'info' comprises (files, counts, metadata), and it omits this entirely.

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%; the uuid parameter is fully documented in the schema with its '<uuid>~<count>' format and an example. The description's 'by its id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so 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+resource ('Get info for a single file group') and the lookup key ('by its id'), which separates it from list_groups. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with get_file, but the singular-scoped purpose is unambiguous.

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: call it when you hold a group id and need that group's details. There is no statement of when not to use it, no prerequisite/auth note, and no pointer to list_groups as the alternative for enumeration.

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