get_access_level_group

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Returns' and 'wraps NBAPI GetAccessLevelGroup' indicate a read operation and external API coupling, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, errors, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple read, but not comprehensive.

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?

One sentence with no wasted words: function first, then key, then underlying API wrapper in a parenthetical. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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-key lookup, the description and schema cover the basics. However, with no output schema and no annotation, the agent still doesn't know what 'details' includes or what happens for missing/invalid keys, leaving some uncertainty.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents ACCESSLEVELGROUPKEY as the required unique key. The description only restates that the tool retrieves the group for that key, adding no extra format, constraints, or usage details beyond the schema.

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 action ('Returns the details') on a specific resource ('a single access level group') keyed by ACCESSLEVELGROUPKEY. The word 'single' helps differentiate it from plural siblings like get_access_level_groups, though it doesn't enumerate which details are returned.

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 this tool is for retrieving one group when you have a specific key, but it never names alternatives such as get_access_level_groups or states when not to use it. Usage context is present only by implication.

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