get_group

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: cost (1 call), visibility rules for unjoined public groups, the exact field set returned (members_can_* included, billing subscription dropped, plus member/membership/parent/url), and error semantics (403 = hidden from user, 404 = unknown). This is exactly the destructive/edge-case context the readOnly/idempotent hints don't cover.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the identifier forms, then scope, then return shape, then error codes. No filler; every clause carries load-bearing information.

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 fully covers the return payload and the error taxonomy, plus the non-member visibility nuance. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret the result is missing.

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 description's 'numeric id, short key or URL handle' essentially restates the schema's parameter description. No additional syntax or format detail is added, so the 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?

States a specific resource (a single group) and the accepted identifier forms (numeric id, short key, URL handle), making it clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_groups ('One group' vs a list). An agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear usage context that it 'works for public groups the user has not joined,' which tells the agent this is usable even without membership. It does not explicitly name list_groups as the alternative for multiple groups, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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