Get Root Outcome 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 known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the action: it does not explain what a 'root outcome group' is, how hierarchy works, or what happens for invalid contexts. With no output schema, this leaves the agent uninformed about response behavior.

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, direct sentence contains all the essential information: the operation, the resource, and the two possible contexts. No filler or repetition exists.

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 simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and safe annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, because there is no output schema and no explanation of the outcome group hierarchy, the agent may not fully understand what result to expect or how this endpoint fits with related outcome-group tools.

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%: both context_type and context_id are documented with types and descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('root outcome group'), and the scope ('account or course context'). The term 'root' distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_outcome_groups and get_outcome_group, so an agent can differentiate it without opening schemas.

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 when to use the tool: when the root outcome group for a given account or course is needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or how it relates to alternatives like get_outcome_group or list_outcome_groups.

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