Fetch a group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's "Read-only" largely restates readOnlyHint; the endpoint mapping is the only mildly additive context, and nothing is said about what a missing id returns 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?

Two short clauses with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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?

This is a simple single-record read with full annotation coverage and complete schema descriptions, and no output schema exists so return value explanation is not required. The definition is sufficient to call it correctly, though a note on missing-id behavior or the response_format default would round it out.

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%, with both 'id' and 'response_format' fully documented including the enum values, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the path-template notation showing id is a path parameter, which the schema already implies. 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 specific verb+resource ("Fetch a group") and identifies the underlying endpoint GET /groups/{id}, making clear this retrieves a single group by id rather than listing. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like placetel_list_groups or placetel_get_site, but the singular resource plus path template is unambiguous enough for selection.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as placetel_list_groups for enumeration or placetel_update_group for mutation. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb and the endpoint template.

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