beta_groups__beta_recruitment_criteria__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds the endpoint path but no further behavioral details such as pagination, response shape, or error conditions. This meets the baseline but doesn't add significant value beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource, followed by the endpoint URL. There is no extraneous information, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 simple read operation with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It lacks explicit return-value details, but without an output schema and with a clear resource name, the agent can infer what the response contains. The endpoint path adds useful context, though a bit more on behavior or the specific use of the fields parameter could improve completeness.

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 the input schema already fully documents both parameters (id and fields_betaRecruitmentCriteria). The description doesn't add parameter-level details, but with complete schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource ('beta recruitment criteria for a beta group') and includes the exact endpoint path. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like beta_recruitment_criteria__create, __delete, and __update.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource name make the tool's purpose clear. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use create/update/delete instead for modifications,' the sibling tool names provide that context. The description implies a read-only lookup without exclusions, which is clear enough for an agent.

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