List business groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful domain behavior (environments live on business groups, not the root organization) and that ids are returned, but it says nothing about auth/permission requirements, pagination, or the size/shape of the result set.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler; the core purpose comes first and the fallback routing follows. 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?

For a single-optional-param, annotation-free read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, defaulting behavior, and cross-tool routing. Remaining gaps (result size, pagination, permission needs) are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one optional parameter (rootOrgId), whose default behavior is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 3 baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the business groups') and scope ('under the credentials' organization'), plus notes the returned ids. It also implicitly separates itself from anypoint_list_environments by explaining that environments hang off business groups rather than the root org.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional directive: 'call this first if anypoint_list_environments returns nothing,' naming the sibling tool and the failure condition that should route the agent here. This is exactly the when/when-alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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