Get Contact Group

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, and adds that members are included in the result. However, it does not describe error behavior (e.g., unknown group_id) or any other operational details beyond the annotations and schema, so it offers minimal additional transparency.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and clearly states the tool's scope. There is no redundant or filler content, making it highly 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 rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), a fully described input schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what is needed for a simple read operation. The only missing element is explicit usage differentiation from siblings, but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward 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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema with explicit descriptions (e.g., group_id: 'The contact group ID.', max_members: 'Maximum number of members to return (default: 100, max: 1000).', user_google_email: 'The user's Google email address. Required.'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states the tool's verb and resource specifically: 'Get details of a specific contact group including its members.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_contact_groups, which likely only lists groups without member details, and manage_contact_group for modifications.

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 when you need details of a single contact group, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_contact_groups for enumeration or search_contacts. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided beyond the verb 'Get'.

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