contact_group_get

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly discloses that members come back as resourceNames rather than hydrated records, but says nothing about truncation from max_members (default 1000), pagination, or auth requirements — a significant omission for a grouped-fetch tool.

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 core behavior front-loaded and the follow-up workflow second. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With three parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to do more. It omits the truncation behavior of max_members and the resource-name format, gaps an agent would hit on a real call.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters and does not. Only `resource_name` is loosely implied ("one contact group"), with no expected format; `account` is unmentioned and `max_members` — the parameter that silently caps member results — is never referenced.

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 contact group") and adds what comes back ("its member resourceNames"), which distinguishes it from a list operation. It does not explicitly name contact_groups_list as the alternative, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the word "one".

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?

Gives one concrete workflow: pair the returned `members` with `contacts_batch_get` to pull a whole segment in two calls. That is useful downstream context, but there is no guidance on when to prefer contact_group_get over contact_get/contacts_search, and no prerequisites mentioned.

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