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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond those annotations: it documents the exact return shape and notes that results are not paginated. It also explains the domain concept of a group as a reusable bag of secrets.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: the first states the action and defines the resource, the second gives the usage purpose and output/pagination details. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return value shape and pagination behavior. It also ties the tool to downstream workflows. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single optional org parameter, including detailed guidance about omitting it and the error behavior for multiple organizations. The description itself does not add parameter-level semantics beyond mentioning organization context, so the schema handles the burden and 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the shared groups in an organization.' It also defines what a group is and names the sibling tools that consume the group slug, so an agent can distinguish this from list_orgs, list_apps, and list_env_groups without opening schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: 'Use it to find the group slug compose_group and list_group_envs take.' This tells the agent when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name competing list_* tools, but the concrete purpose makes the intended context clear.

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