Search ChurchTools groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond them: the result is a reduced projection (only id, name, group type id, status id). It stops short of mentioning pagination or result limits, which the schema covers separately.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the capability statement comes first and the sibling routing second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses what the response contains, which is the key missing structured information. Combined with the 100%-documented input schema and safety annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; pagination semantics are the only unaddressed item and are in the schema.

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%, including the status id legend, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only restates the filter dimensions at a high level (text, group type, status) and adds no syntax or combination behavior beyond it.

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 ('Finds') and resource ('groups') plus the three filter dimensions (text, group type, status). It also names the sibling ct_get_group and clarifies the boundary between the two, so the agent can separate them without opening schemas.

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 routes the agent: use this for a lightweight search, use ct_get_group for the complete group. It gives a clear alternative and the condition selecting it, though it does not state exclusions (e.g. minimum query length or pagination expectations).

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