Get Outcome Group

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to disclose mutating behavior. It adds no further behavioral context (e.g., error conditions, what 'details' include). It does not contradict annotations. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is reasonable.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise and has no waste, though it is slightly vague about what 'details' means.

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?

Given the tool has a small parameter set (3), full schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is adequate but could specify what fields are returned or any prerequisites (e.g., that the context must exist). It is complete enough for a straightforward retrieval.

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 input schema has complete descriptions for all three parameters, covering context_type, context_id, and outcome_group_id. The description merely restates 'account or course context', which adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. With 100% coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get details for a specific outcome group in an account or course context' clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (outcome group), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_outcome_groups' by emphasizing 'specific' outcome group. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools that also fetch outcome-related data.

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?

The description implies usage: to retrieve details of a single outcome group, given context type/id and outcome_group_id. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when listing groups) or mention alternatives. Given the clear parameters, it provides basic context but no exclusions or alternatives.

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