Get Group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., return format, required auth, rate limits), but it doesn't contradict the annotations. With annotations covering the primary trait, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence of five words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy. This is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter with a clear schema description), the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering read-only behavior, the minimal description is sufficient. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema presumably does. Sibling context further clarifies its role, making it complete enough.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a detailed description for group_id ('Numeric group id (from search_groups)'), so the description need not add more. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema does the heavy lifting, earning the baseline score.

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 'Get Facebook group details' uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Facebook group'), and 'details' implies general group information, distinguishing it from siblings like get_group_posts and get_group_members which target specific aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the parameter description 'Numeric group id (from search_groups)' implies usage after searching for a group. This is implicit guidance but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, so it's a minimal viable score.

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