get-group-by-id

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens when the ID does not match a group, whether an error or empty result is returned, or what groups/permission context the caller must belong to. It essentially restates the title.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though it conveys no more information than the tool name and annotation title already do.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke it correctly. There is no output schema and the description does not describe the returned group shape or not-found behavior, leaving a gap an agent may care about when deciding whether to call this or get-groups.

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 a single path parameter (groupID, int64), so the input contract is fully documented structurally. The description's "by its ID" adds no format, range, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Find a user group") plus the retrieval key ("by its ID"), which lets an agent distinguish it from a list-style sibling like get-groups. It does not explicitly name get-groups as the alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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 phrase "by its ID" implies the tool is for single-group lookups when the identifier is known, which hints at when to prefer it over a listing tool. However, the description never states when not to use it, what prerequisites exist, or which sibling handles the list/enumerate case.

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