xero_list_contact_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about governed connector routing and that 'effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it,' which goes slightly beyond the schema. However, the mention of 'approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write' is tangential for a read-only tool and adds mild confusion rather than clarity.

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 compact, uses a clear bullet-style Args list, and front-loads the connector identification before the routing constraint and parameters. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the overall structure is scannable and does not contain excessive filler.

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 output schema and annotations supply return-value and safety information, so the description does not need to explain those. However, it lacks Xero-specific operation context, such as what contact groups are, how the `arguments` JSON should be shaped for this particular operation, or which routing parameters are expected for a successful call. The governed-authority constraint hints at prerequisites but does not state them concretely.

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 carries the parameter documentation burden, and it does provide one-line meanings for all seven parameters. project_id, project_ref, connector_account_ref, idempotency_key, effect, and approval_ref each receive at least a basic semantic role. The 'arguments' parameter remains vague ('JSON string of arguments for the connector operation'), but overall the description compensates reasonably for the empty schema descriptions.

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 by restating the tool name and platform identifier ('Xero connector operation `list_contact_groups` (platform tool `xero.list_contact_groups`)'), which is essentially a tautology. It never states in plain functional terms that the tool lists Xero contact groups or what that resource represents. The routing constraint that follows is about authority, not about the tool's purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xero_list_contacts or other xero_list_* tools. The phrase 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority' is a routing restriction, not a usage condition or decision rule. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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