Group details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the returned fields and the upstream Green API method, but says nothing about auth requirements, error/empty-group behavior, 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?

A single terse fragment with no padding and the key content front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though its telegraphic style reads as a list of fields rather than a clear statement of 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does list the fields returned, which partially compensates. However, it leaves the groupId format and the tool's place relative to list_groups unexplained, so it is only minimally adequate.

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 0% and the single groupId parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description gives no hint about the expected format (e.g., a WhatsApp '@g.us' identifier), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 is a noun phrase enumerating the fields returned (subject, description, owner, participant count/admins) with a parenthetical pointing at the underlying 'getGroupData' call. The verb is only implied, so the reader must infer 'retrieve details for one group'. It weakly differentiates from the sibling list_groups but never states the distinction explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite list_groups being an obvious sibling for enumerating groups. The agent must guess the context 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.