getSmpGroup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's main job is to add extra behavioral context. It discloses the 10 req/s rate limit and the exact return semantics (smpGroup as integer, 0 meaning no group). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The agent hint slightly repeats the return-value information from earlier sentences, but it is short enough that this redundancy is not harmful.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it states the purpose, return type, sentinel value, rate limit, and use case. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, and the description explicitly confirms that no parameters are needed. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds sufficient clarity by stating no arguments are required.

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 states the tool's purpose: querying the SMP group ID associated with the account. It includes the sentinel value 0 for no group, which removes ambiguity about what the tool returns. The focus on SMP group assignment distinguishes it from related sibling tools like getMmpState or setMmp.

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 agent hint explicitly says to use this tool to check SMP group assignment, giving clear context for when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a simple zero-parameter read-only query this is a minor omission.

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