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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are tenant-wide, sorted by priority ascending, and soft-deleted groups are omitted. It omits pagination or result-size behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the scope and ordering constraint is front-loaded in the parenthetical and the exclusion rule follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering and filtering, which is most of what an agent needs to call it. It does not describe the shape of a returned group or whether results are paginated, a minor gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies; the description correctly spends no words on input semantics.

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 and resource ('List policy groups') plus scope ('tenant-wide') and ordering ('priority ASC'). It is clearly a list operation distinct from lexq_groups_get or lexq_groups_create, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the word 'List', and the parenthetical clarifies scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus lexq_groups_get or when-not guidance. An agent can infer the routing but must do so itself.

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