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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it is a Preview API that may change without a version bump, and it requires resources:read. It doesn't describe pagination behavior, but the preview instability warning is a real value-add.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the preview caveat and the read-only scope. No filler; every phrase carries information, though the core purpose statement is a bit cryptic.

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 3-param read-only list tool with no output schema, the preview-status and scope warnings are helpful, but the description never defines what a 'resource group' is or how it relates to resources, leaving the agent to guess at the returned entity.

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 only 33%: 'after' and 'limit' have schema descriptions, but 'locationId' (the sole required param) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning about any parameter, so it doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a concrete verb-ish phrase ('Resource headings in display order') but never plainly says it lists resource groups, and doesn't distinguish it from close siblings like cliento_list_resources or cliento_list_service_groups. An agent must infer that 'resource groups' are the 'headings' being returned.

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 states the required scope (resources:read), which is useful prerequisite info, but gives no guidance on when to pick this over cliento_list_resources or cliento_list_service_groups. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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