list_endpoint_groups

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safe-read profile, the description adds real context beyond annotations: the pagination envelope {total, offset, has_more, items}, the default/max page size, and that `contains` is a server-side filter rather than client-side. It does not disclose auth or rate-limit behavior, but the added value is substantial.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return shape, then filter semantics. No filler, though the parenthetical about vulnerability fields is slightly tangential for an endpoint-group tool.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description describes the return envelope and pagination fields, and it covers the filter parameter's behavior. Combined with a simple read-only, four-parameter schema, an agent has what it needs to call this 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It documents limit's default (20) and cap (200), reveals offset through the paging envelope, and explains `contains` semantics with examples (CVE id, product name). org_id is only implied by 'in an organization'.

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 and resource: 'List endpoint groups in an organization.' The resource is distinct from siblings like list_endpoints or list_endpoint_group_members, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings to draw the boundary.

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?

Provides operational guidance ('check `total` before paging through everything') and explains what `contains` filters on, which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over list_endpoint_group_members or list_endpoints, so usage context is only implied.

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