get_reader_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'returns the details' without specifying the nature of the operation (likely read-only), potential error conditions, or what 'details' encompass. It does mention wrapping NBAPI GetReaderGroup, but that adds no behavioral clarity. The description is too thin to disclose meaningful behavior.

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 a single, focused sentence with no extraneous content. The key fact (returns a single reader group by key) is front-loaded, and the parenthetical implementation detail is supplementary without adding bulk.

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 getter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not define what 'details' are returned, does not indicate any error behavior, and does not clarify that the operation is read-only. Given the simple single-parameter interface, some of this is inferred, but the absence of return format and usage guidance makes it incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

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% for the single parameter READERGROUPKEY, so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description merely restates 'given READERGROUPKEY' without adding format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 clearly states it returns details of a single reader group for a given READERGROUPKEY, and explicitly uses 'single' to distinguish from the plural sibling get_reader_groups. The verb 'returns' and resource 'reader group' are specific and 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 by 'single' and 'given READERGROUPKEY', but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_reader_groups or get_reader. No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving selection to inference.

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