iis_get_group_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what information is surfaced (curator contacts, starosta, classmates), but says nothing about permissions required, whether the user must belong to a group, or failure behavior when no group is assigned.

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 economical sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the returned entities. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying what comes back, and it does so adequately by naming the three categories of data. It falls short only on scoping details (which group, what happens without a group), which for a zero-parameter self-scoped tool is a minor omission.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; per the rubric this is the baseline 4. The description does not need to compensate for any schema 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 gives a specific verb ('Получить' / retrieve) and names the exact resource contents: curator contacts, group leader (староста), and the classmates list. It is clearly distinguishable from iis_get_profile (own profile) and get_group_schedule, though it does not explicitly state that differentiation.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus iis_get_profile or get_group_schedule, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the returned-data list.

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