get_recipient_group

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no new behavioral information. It does not disclose anything about return format, pagination, permissions, or error behavior. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds little beyond confirming it is a read operation. No contradiction.

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?

A single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant filler. It is efficiently written and easy to parse.

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 get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but functionally adequate. It could benefit from mentioning what the returned details include or the fact that it requires an existing group_id. However, given the simplicity, the description is mostly complete, though slightly thin on contextual value.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'group_id' with description 'Recipient group ID'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it provides no example, format specificity, or context on how to obtain the ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema covers the parameter.

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 details about a specific recipient group' clearly states the verb and resource, indicating a read operation for a single group. It distinguishes itself from 'get_recipient_groups' (plural) and 'update_recipient_group' among siblings. However, it is generic and could apply to any 'get' tool, lacking specificity about what details are included.

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 implies usage for fetching a single group, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_recipient_groups' for listing all groups. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., need group_id) or conditions that would make it preferable over similar tools. Basic context is clear but no explicit guidance.

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