linkfetch_get_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens on an invalid/missing id. For a simple fetch this is a modest but real gap.

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 tight phrase with no filler, and the identifying parameter is front-loaded. Slightly under-specified rather than over-long, but nothing is wasted.

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?

The tool is a simple one-parameter lookup, and the schema covers the only input, so the definition is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not say what details are returned or how errors surface.

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 documents the numeric pattern and where to find the id, so the description's 'numeric group id' is nearly redundant. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 the resource (a LinkedIn group) and the action (retrieve details) keyed by numeric id, which is enough to distinguish it from sibling fetches like get_profile and get_company. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource sentence, but the intent is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus linkfetch_search_groups or any sibling, nor any stated prerequisites. The reader must infer that this is the single-record lookup counterpart to the search tools.

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