search_groups_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description supplies some behavioral context by noting case-insensitive and partial-match search, plus paging. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if any permissions/limits apply, which is left to inference from the tool name.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and includes key modifiers. No wasted words.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, the description covers the core behavior and matching semantics. The existence of an output schema handles return-value details. However, it could benefit from mentioning when to use it versus listing all groups, but that falls under usage guidelines.

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 description clarifies that the 'name' parameter refers to the display name to search for, and 'with paging' implies the 'limit' parameter controls result-page size. This compensates for the lack of schema property 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 clearly states the tool searches for groups by display name, with specific matching behavior (case-insensitive, partial match) and paging. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_all_groups or search_users.

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 does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_all_groups or get_group_by_id. It implies usage for name-based search but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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