Client groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only "with their sizes," which is a thin hint about return content; it says nothing about caching behavior, whether the list is paginated, or what a group actually contains.

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 one-line fragment is front-loaded and free of padding, so nothing is wasted. However, a bare noun phrase is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness; there is no structure for an agent to parse beyond the single clause.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional boolean, no output schema, no nested objects) and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not be long. Still, it omits what a client group is and what fields come back, leaving the agent to infer the tool's usefulness from the name alone.

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% with a single optional parameter (`fresh`, documented as "Skip the local cache"), so the schema carries the semantics. The description never mentions the cache-freshness option, but with full coverage the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Client groups with their sizes" essentially restates the tool name and title, adding only the hint that size counts are included. There is no verb, no scope statement, and nothing to distinguish it from siblings like customer_tags or campaign_groups that an agent might confuse it with.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative. An agent has no way to know whether this is the right tool for segmenting customers versus campaign_groups or customer_tags; it must infer everything from the name.

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