get_contact_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It communicates a read-only intent ('Get details'), states the return type (str), and documents the max_members cap and default. It does not mention error behavior or authentication prerequisites, but for a simple read operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact and structured with a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args/Returns breakdown. Every line adds useful information and there is no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, all parameters, return type, and member-count bounds. It could be more complete by mentioning when to use list_contact_groups instead or noting that valid Google auth/email context is assumed, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return shapes in detail.

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 document the parameters itself, and it does. It explains user_google_email is required, group_id identifies the group, and max_members has explicit default and maximum values. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific contact group including its members.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_contact_groups (listing all groups) and manage_contact_group (modification), and the 'specific' wording signals that a group_id is required.

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 through 'specific contact group' and the required group_id parameter, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_contact_groups or search_contacts. No exclusions or routing guidance is given.

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