list_available_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds value by specifying what is listed (tool groups and auth requirements) and the special fresh-install behavior, complementing the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the purpose precisely, and the second provides essential operational context. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 zero-parameter tool with a rich output schema and clear annotations, the description fully explains what the tool does and when it is particularly useful. It covers the essential context without being verbose, so nothing important is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). With no parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to add parameter details and does not attempt to, so this score is appropriate.

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 opens with 'List every tool group across all providers, which are currently enabled, and each provider's auth requirements', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tools_by_capability that focus on capabilities rather than enabled groups and auth needs.

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 description provides a concrete use case: 'On a fresh install (no groups enabled) this is the only functional tool, so the model can guide the user to enable what they want in sportsdata-mcp.yaml.' This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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