Get a group

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the call hits WhatsApp live, must not be polled, and a 429 whatsapp_rate_limited response carries a retry_after backoff. That is meaningful operational disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the live-call/no-poll constraint, then the rate-limit behavior. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned contents (subject, description, settings, participants) and the failure mode (429 with retry_after). Largely complete for a one-param read tool, though it omits any auth/permission prerequisites.

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 100% on the single 'group' param (JID format example included), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline case for high coverage.

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 ('Read one group') and enumerates what is returned (subject, description, settings, participants). This distinguishes it from list_groups by scoping to a single group, though it never names that sibling 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?

Gives an explicit usage constraint — 'This asks WhatsApp itself; do not poll it' — which is an actionable when-not-to-do instruction. It does not, however, route the agent to an alternative (e.g., list_groups for enumerating), so it falls short of full alternative-naming guidance.

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