get_contact_group

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 description need not restate safety. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as return format or error conditions. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but it adds minimal value.

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 extremely short at four words, which is concise but lacks any structuring. It is not verbose, but the brevity borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness, as it provides no additional useful details beyond the tool name.

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?

Given the availability of sibling tools like list_contact_groups and search_contact_groups, the description does not explain when to use this tool for a single group by ID versus listing or searching. Without an output schema, the description also fails to mention what a successful fetch returns, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 covers 100% of parameters, with contact_group_id described as 'the id of the contact group'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 description 'Fetch a contact group' clearly states the action and resource. It is not a tautology because 'fetch' adds a verb to the noun 'contact group', and the resource is distinct from siblings like get_contact or get_contact_relation. However, it does not differentiate itself from list_contact_groups or search_contact_groups, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_contact_groups or search_contact_groups. The description is a single sentence with no context about appropriate invocation, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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