preview_group_link

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 covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the caller is not added to the group, which distinguishes a passive fetch from a membership mutation. It says nothing about auth/account requirements or rate limits on linked lookups.

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 short sentence that front-loads the resource and immediately qualifies it with the non-joining constraint. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool whose 'account' parameter is undocumented and whose behavior on invalid/expired links or non-member access is unstated, the description leaves real gaps beyond what structured fields provide.

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 only 50%: the 'link' parameter is described in the schema as a WhatsApp invite URL or bare code, but 'account' has no description anywhere. The prose ('à partir de son lien d'invitation') merely echoes the schema wording for link and adds nothing, leaving the account parameter fully unexplained.

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 verb (preview/aperçu) and resource (a group reached via its invite link), and the clause 'sans le rejoindre' explicitly carves it out from join_group. It stops short of naming any sibling tool outright, so an agent must infer the contrast rather than read it.

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?

'Sans le rejoindre' implies the use case (inspecting a group before committing to join_group), but the description never states when to prefer this over join_group, group_invite_link, or list_join_requests. Usage is only inferable, not stated.

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