Get customer group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details: 'returning all fields by default' and 'Monetary values are integers in cents', which are not implicit. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each focused: purpose, alternative usage, and parameter/data note. No redundant wording or fluff; the description is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter) and complete schema coverage, the description adequately covers the return behavior and data format. No output schema, but the description provides enough context about what is returned. Missing minor details like error handling, but not essential for this read-only tool.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'fields' and cents adds minimal new semantic value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Fetch one customer group by its numeric easybill ID', specifying the action, resource, and identifier. It distinguishes itself from list_customer_groups (which lists) and get_customer (different resource).

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?

Explicitly instructs to use easybill_list_customer_groups first when only a name or number is known, naming the alternative tool directly. Also advises using the 'fields' parameter to narrow the response, giving practical usage context.

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