list_scim_groups

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds enterprise-gating and the concrete 403 on non-Enterprise plans, plus the 'reads only, does not show mappings/members' limitation. The page-size cap of 100 already exists in the schema, so the description doesn't waste space repeating it. It lacks pagination/cursor details beyond the schema, but annotations cover the safety profile and the added constraints are genuinely useful.

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?

Four sentences with no wasted words: purpose, usage context, scope limitation, and error/enterprise-gating. The most decision-relevant facts (what it does, what it lacks, when to use it) are front-loaded, and the 403 detail is a single clause at the end.

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 read-only list tool with a rich output schema, zero required params, and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, exclusions, enterprise gating, and error behavior. There is no missing information an agent needs to select and call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds functional context by tying search to SCIM group names and by linking the tool's purpose to the parameters (resolving group ID/display name). It also clarifies the page parameter is zero-based through the schema itself, which is already encoded there. The description itself adds modest param semantics, so 4 is fair.

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 (search and page), resource (identity-provider groups synchronized to Portkey over SCIM), and explicit scope (directory groups only, not workspace mappings or members). Distinguishes itself from sibling list_scim_workspace_mappings even before the alternative is named. Nothing tautological or vague.

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 says to use this to resolve a group ID or exact display name before create_scim_workspace_mapping, and tells readers what it does not show (workspace mappings or individual members), so an agent knows when to pick it vs. list_scim_workspace_mappings. This is clear when-to-use guidance with an exclusion.

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