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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only groups with publicly visible resources are returned and that no API key is needed. It does not describe the return format or potential errors, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. Action and key conditions are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the scope and access requirement. The only gap is the lack of information about the return format, which is typical for list operations but could be noted.

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% (slug with description). The description adds 'public slug' context, clarifying it's for the tenant identifier. It does not add extensive detail beyond the schema, but it provides enough for correct usage.

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 clearly states it lists resource groups by public slug, with a specific condition (only those with publicly visible resources). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_resources and list_reservations by focusing on groups and requiring a slug.

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?

Explicitly notes 'No API key required', indicating public access. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. The context of public slug implies it's for tenant-specific public data, but guidance could be more explicit.

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