Get group

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: members' emails, phones and addresses are omitted and redacted by default, and only revealed via include_contact_details, plus a disclosure of default member representation (names only). No permission or rate-limit notes, but the redaction behavior is the key trait.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core identification and the returned fields front-loaded, and the conditional flag explained last. Slightly list-heavy but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned payload (members, type, status, qualification answers, preferred companies, custom fields) and explaining the default redaction state — exactly what an agent needs to interpret results.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that contact details are opt-in and that names are returned by default, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('One group by ID') and goes further to define what a group is (household or company with roles like vendors/applicants/landlords), so an agent can distinguish it from get_person and get_property. The returned field inventory makes the scope unambiguous.

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 (fetch a single group when you have its ID) and gives a conditional for include_contact_details, but never states when to prefer this over a sibling such as get_group_events or find_people, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The endpoint reference is useful but not routing guidance.

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