get_user_group

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a read-only lookup that creates/changes/deletes nothing, auth is injected server-side, calls are throttled and retried, and non-2xx responses surface as errors with specific status meanings. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 well-structured with labeled sections: purpose, behavior, returns, use-when, and related tools. Every sentence adds information, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the supporting detail. The length is justified by the absence of an output schema.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, how errors are presented, what the auth/rate-limit behavior is, and which sibling tools are related. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%: the single required parameter 'id' is already described as 'The unique identifier of the user group' in the input schema. The description merely restates that concept ('provided user group id') and adds no new format, source, or validation detail, so the schema carries the semantic load.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get a user group' and specifies it returns the user group identified by the provided id. The singular-by-id framing distinguishes it from the plural listing tool get_user_groups and other related user-group tools, so an agent can tell what this tool does.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting') and when not to ('Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool'), and it lists related user-group tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast this read tool with the other read-oriented siblings like get_user_groups or get_users_user_group, leaving the choice among those partially implicit.

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