get_account_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: case-insensitive name resolution with exact-match preference then substring fallback, and the ambiguous-name behavior (HTTP 300 returning candidates). That error-path disclosure is real value beyond the annotations, though permissions or rate-limit context is absent.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it fetches, what it returns and where that output goes next, then resolution/error semantics. Nothing is repeated and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: return shape (connectionIds[]), name-matching rules, and the ambiguous-result response code. An agent has enough to call it and handle both success and the 300 case.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description raises it by explaining the matching algorithm and priority order for idOrName, which the schema's 'Mongo ObjectId or group name' does not. It also clarifies the interplay between default and idOrName, beyond the schema's 'ignore idOrName' phrasing.

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 and resource ('Fetch one account group') and enumerates the three lookup keys (id, name, default flag), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_account_groups. An agent can pick this over the list tool without reading either schema.

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?

Makes the intended downstream flow explicit: the returned connectionIds[] 'can be passed straight to create_post', naming the consuming sibling tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as list_account_groups when the id is unknown, which keeps it short of a 5.

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