list_account_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is a GET (implying read-only) and specifies parameter placement, which is useful. Yet it omits details like response structure (though output schema exists), potential pagination limits, sorting syntax, or whether the operation is safe/requires specific permissions. It adds some context beyond what would be inferable from the schema, but not enough for a fully transparent call.

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 description is two sentences with zero wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the endpoint and parameter routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 list tool with an output schema and no required parameters, the description is reasonably complete: it states the endpoint, parameter placement, and the action. However, it does not specify that an accountId is mandatory (even though implied by the path), nor does it differentiate from `list_groups` or mention authentication/permissions. Given the sibling context and the need to route an agent correctly, the description leaves some gaps around when and with what constraints to call it.

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 input schema is entirely open objects with `additionalProperties: true` and 0% coverage, so parameter meaning is undefined. The description compensates by explaining that path_params hold route IDs (implicitly the accountId) and query holds filtering/pagination/sorting options. This adds real semantic value beyond the schema, though it does not clarify the `body` parameter or the exact format of query values.

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 'List learner groups in an account' — a specific verb-resource pair — and reinforces it with the exact REST endpoint `GET /accounts/{accountId}/groups`. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `list_groups` by adding the 'in an account' scope, so an agent can tell which tool to use without opening the schema.

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 gives concrete placement instructions ('Put route IDs in path_params and filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values in query'), which is helpful for parameter usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `list_groups` (e.g., 'use this when you have an accountId, otherwise use list_groups'), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is about how, not when.

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