Get group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond them: the result includes debts between members and these are simplified when the group has debt simplification enabled, meaning output shape varies per group. It says nothing about permissions, lookup failure behavior for unknown names, or ambiguities when a name matches multiple groups.

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?

Two tight sentences with the return content front-loaded and the conditional debt simplification in a parenthetical. The trailing 'Accepts a group id or name' is mild redundancy against the schema, but nothing else 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value explanation and does so well by enumerating members, balances, and debts. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only the no-match/ambiguous-name behavior is left unaddressed.

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 that the group parameter accepts an id or case-insensitive partial name. The description's 'Accepts a group id or name' merely restates that, adding no extra meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: it returns one group's members with balances plus inter-member debts, and notes the debt-simplification variation. The phrase 'one group's' signals it is the single-group counterpart to list_groups, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — the description makes clear this is a single-group lookup, from which an agent can infer it follows list_groups. It gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as get_balances for cross-group balances.

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