get_group

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), but the description adds real behavioral context: it forces a Store.GroupMetadata.update() round-trip against the WA backend before reading, implying freshness guarantees and added latency versus a cached read. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Three short blocks: what it does, when to prefer it, and a concrete invocation example. The freshness guarantee is front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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 one-parameter single-resource read with no output schema, the definition covers what is returned (current membership including recent joins/leaves), the freshness behavior, and the alternative tool. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 jid parameter is fully documented with format constraints ('must end in @g.us'). The description's example instantiation is a minor convenience but adds no syntax or semantics 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?

Specific verb (fetch) plus resource (a single group) plus a distinguishing scope qualifier: LIVE participant list. It explicitly separates itself from list_groups, so an agent can route correctly without opening 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?

States the selection condition directly: 'Use this when accuracy matters; use `list_groups` for browsing.' The alternative tool is named and the trade-off that selects between them is spelled out.

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