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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what kind of data is included (members, levels, weekly slot, upcoming matches, calendar feed), but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or response shape beyond these contents.

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 description is short and mostly to the point, but the opening phrase 'A crew that plays together' is decorative and adds little operational meaning. The useful content appears after the colon, making it less front-loaded than it could be.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description gives a reasonable sense of what the response contains. However, it lacks explicit usage context, does not state that this is a direct lookup by code, and provides no detail about failure behavior or returned data structure, which an agent might need since there is no output schema.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter 'code' with type, length constraints, and the description 'The code from the link.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details; the baseline of 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?

The title 'Get a group' and description 'A crew that plays together: members with levels, weekly slot, upcoming matches, calendar feed' make it clear this tool returns group details by code. It is distinguishable from sibling get_match by focusing on group/crew contents rather than match data, though the description never explicitly states the retrieval action.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_match, find_clubs, or join_match. The only contextual clue is the parameter description 'The code from the link,' implying a direct lookup by code, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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