Find Group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds 'detailed information' but does not specify what fields are returned or behavior on missing JID. With strong annotation coverage, this is acceptable and does not contradict 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 containing only essential information. No filler, no redundancy, and it immediately communicates the tool's core function.

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-only lookup with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. The tool's role among siblings (e.g., group_participants for participants) makes it clear that 'detailed information' means group metadata, not participant lists. No additional context is necessary.

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% for the single required parameter group_jid, described as 'Group JID (e.g. 120363012345678901@g.us)'. The description simply says 'by JID', which adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('detailed information about a specific WhatsApp group') and identifies the lookup key ('by JID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_groups or group_participants, which serve different purposes.

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 clearly implies the use case: you need details for one known group JID. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name a sibling tool for different scenarios (e.g., list_groups for all groups), so it stops 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.