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 the underlying REST endpoint mapping (GET /v1/groups) but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or whether all groups are returned — gaps that matter for a paginated list.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: purpose and rationale first, endpoint mapping as a trailing reference. Nothing needs trimming.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover what an agent needs; it implies group ids are returned. Minor gaps (pagination expectations, whether results are scoped) keep it from a 5.

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%, with limit and cursor fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List groups") plus the reason they matter ("ids needed to place people/companies"), which is more than a tautology. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like folk_list_companies, though the distinct resource name makes the boundary 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?

The parenthetical "ids needed to place people/companies" implies the upstream workflow that motivates calling this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many list_* siblings. Usage is only implied.

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