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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on pagination behavior across pages, no mention of what happens for a non-existent or company-type id, no result-shape hints. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this leaves the description with essentially zero added behavioral value.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with the tool's purpose first. The trailing 'LACRM: GetGroupsAttachedToContact.' is redundant internal naming and slightly dilutes the otherwise efficient structure.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented params and annotations, the essentials are covered. However, with no output schema, the description never says what a result looks like (group ids, names) or how pagination terminates, which an agent needs to consume the response.

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% – page, contact_id (long numeric Uid passed as string) and max_results (1-10000, default 50) are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a clear verb+resource with scope ('the groups one contact or company belongs to'), which distinguishes it implicitly from lacrm_list_groups (all groups) and lacrm_list_contacts_in_group (the inverse direction). It does not explicitly name those siblings, and the trailing 'LACRM: GetGroupsAttachedToContact.' is internal plumbing that adds no meaning.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to the closely related lacrm_list_groups / lacrm_add_contact_to_group / lacrm_list_contacts_in_group tools. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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