get_time_spec_group

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe read-only profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that this is a single-item retrieval by key, but it does not disclose error behavior, return format, auth needs, or rate limits.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical about wrapping NBAPI GetTimeSpecGroup is minor implementation context and does not obscure the core action.

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-only getter with full schema coverage and an annotation, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. The remaining gap is that 'details' is vague and no return shape is described in the absence of an 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description repeats TIMESPECGROUPKEY but adds no format, syntax, or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Returns'), resource ('details of a single time spec group'), and retrieval condition ('for a given TIMESPECGROUPKEY'). The word 'single' distinguishes it from the plural sibling get_time_spec_groups without needing to open either schema.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only implied usage is that a TIMESPECGROUPKEY is required, which is already stated in the schema.

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