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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real interpretive context beyond that: 'Signals, not findings' and the examples of a shared script or a busy minute linking unrelated Agents warn the agent about false positives, which annotations cannot convey. It omits any note on result volume or ordering, though limit is documented in the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what a cluster is before the caution and the call to action. The first sentence's list of pattern types partly duplicates the schema enum, a minor redundancy in otherwise tight prose.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and 'groups of Agents sharing a pattern' plus the four named signals gives a workable picture. It still leaves the internal shape of a group (member count, signal score, identifiers) unspecified, which matters for a tool whose output the agent must interpret.

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 100%, so both limit and signal are already fully documented, including the enum values. The description's enumeration of the four patterns mirrors the enum rather than adding syntax, defaults or filtering behavior beyond it. 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 states a specific resource (groups of Agents sharing a pattern) and enumerates the four pattern types, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name or contrast itself against siblings like search or list_agents, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

"Use it to look for possible coordination; check each group before drawing conclusions" gives clear intent plus an explicit caution about acting on results. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to reach for this tool over the sibling search/list tools.

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