Get a ChurchTools group

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 disclosing that roles are NOT part of this response and must be fetched separately, but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or response shape beyond the field list.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource description front-loaded and the routing note second; the parenthetical field list is slightly verbose but functional. No wasted preamble.

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 read-only single-entity get with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating returned fields and flagging the roles gap. Missing only the id-discovery path (search_groups) to be fully complete.

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?

Only one parameter (groupId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description refers to the group's fields but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the id, 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Shows a group's...') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, type, status, note, meeting time, settings), so an agent knows this is a single-group detail fetch. It does not explicitly contrast with ct_search_groups or ct_list_group_members, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the singular 'a group'.

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 (fetch details for a known groupId), and it helpfully routes the agent elsewhere for roles via GET /groups/{groupId}/roles (ct_api_request). However, it never states when to prefer this over ct_search_groups to resolve an id, nor any prerequisite conditions.

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