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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: each result contains contributed_item_count and a citable amira_url, and it discloses that the underlying data is an authority record of type 'Group'. It doesn't explain rate limits or caching, but that's minor for a read-only list tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then filtering/pagination, then return fields, then cross-tool guidance. No filler or redundant repetition despite covering several distinct pieces of 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?

For a 0-required-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema absent, the description covers resource definition, filtering, pagination, return fields, and a cross-reference to a sibling. The only gap is that 'offset' semantics are not explained, but that is a standard pagination parameter.

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 33%: only 'limit' has a description in the schema (and it's the same as the description's text). The description adds meaning for 'keyword' ('filters by name') which the schema does not document, and reiterates the default/max for limit. Offset is still unexplained, but the key ambiguity (what keyword filters on) is resolved.

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 verb (List) and resource (research groups), and clarifies the resource's underlying type ('organisation authority records typed Group'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_institutions and list_collections. An agent can tell this apart from other list tools immediately.

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 routes to the alternative: 'Use get_institution with the group's name for its items.' It also implies that keyword-filtered enumeration is the use case here. This is a clear when-to-use-this vs. when-to-use-sibling statement.

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