Get group

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: output is admin-dependent, with pending_requests, reported_posts and membership questions returned as 0/empty for non-admins. It doesn't cover behavior for a nonexistent or inaccessible group, which keeps it from a 5.

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 lead fragment 'A group's name, About text, privacy, price, counts, owner and membership questions.' is immediately restated in more detail by the following sentence, so the opening line does not fully earn its place. The remainder is front-loaded and dense with no further waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly, including the conditional admin-only fields. What remains missing is edge-case behavior (invalid group name, permission errors), which an agent would need to handle.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the 'group' parameter with a URL-name example ('yourgroup' for skool.com/yourgroup). The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what is returned ('name, the About text, whether it is private, the price, member, admin, post and course counts, and the owner'), and 'Returns one group' distinguishes it from the list_groups/search_group siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with get_group_stats, which is the closest ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named, even though get_group_stats, search_group and list_groups overlap heavily in this domain. The only usage-relevant signal is implicit: the role-dependent field set, which is behavioral rather than routing guidance.

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