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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no pagination behavior, no default page size note, no auth requirements — which is acceptable given the annotation but leaves nothing extra.

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 the purpose front-loaded. The trailing 'LACRM: GetGroupsAttachedToContact' is internal API mapping that adds little for an agent, but it is brief and not disruptive.

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 paginated read tool with fully documented parameters and readOnlyHint, the definition covers enough to invoke it correctly. With no output schema present there is a minor gap around the shape of the returned group list, but the tool is low-risk and self-evident.

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 page, contact_id, and max_results are already documented in the schema, including the 'contact or company id ... always pass as string' caveat. The description repeats that a contact or company is the subject but adds no syntax or format detail. 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 specific verb (List) and resource (groups) bound to a single contact or company, which distinguishes it from the sibling lacrm_list_groups (all groups) and lacrm_list_contacts_in_group (the inverse direction). An agent can pick it apart from siblings without opening any schema.

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 scope phrase 'one contact or company' implies when to reach for it, but the description never states a when-to-use condition or names an alternative such as lacrm_list_groups or lacrm_add_contact_to_group. Usage is inferable from the name, not spelled out.

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