calendars_get_groups

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

The annotations correctly indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name—no mention of what data is returned, whether it requires authentication, or what happens when locationId is omitted. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, the description should add value but fails to do so.

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?

The text is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not front-load any useful information or structure the content beyond the bare phrase 'Get Groups.' It fails to convey the tool's function or any relevant details.

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?

Although the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not clarify what 'groups' refers to, what the API returns, or how the response is structured. An agent would have no idea what to expect from this endpoint, making it insufficiently documented.

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?

The schema defines the locationId parameter with a clear description and default behavior (defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics for this single optional parameter.

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 'Get Groups' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It fails to specify what kind of groups are being retrieved (calendar groups, user groups, etc.) and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like calendars_get_calendars or calendars_create_calendar_group. An agent cannot determine the tool's actual purpose from this text alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description provides zero information about suitable use cases or how it differs from other calendar-related tools.

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