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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds substantive context by disclosing what the response contains (meeting day, time, place, frequency) and how to enrich it, plus the underlying endpoint groups/getAll. It omits pagination behavior, but that 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?

Two compact clauses, tightly front-loaded with the resource and its returned data, with the expansion tip and endpoint reference appended without waste.

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 correctly compensates by summarizing the fields returned and how to expand them, which is the key missing structured information. A brief note on default result size/pagination would complete it, but nothing essential is absent for a read-only list tool.

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 all five parameters (page, page_size, suspended, category_id, fields) are already fully documented. The description adds only a mild usage note about fields=["people"], not syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 small groups / ministries') and enumerates the returned attributes (meeting day, time, place, frequency), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling elvanto_get_group, though the list-vs-get distinction is inferable.

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?

Offers one actionable hint — add fields=["people"] to include members and leaders — but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to elvanto_get_group or elvanto_list_people. Usage is implied by the domain rather than stated.

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