List Appointment Group Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true. The description adds value by specifying the semantic context ('when participant_type=Group') which helps the agent understand the filter. However, it does not disclose behavior regarding pagination, ordering, or what happens when participant_type is not Group. Given the annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, clear sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and a key nuance. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with one parameter, minimal description is needed. The description, combined with the schema and annotations, provides a complete picture of the tool's use case. The only area it could improve on is explaining the response data shape, but that's often unnecessary for a list endpoint.

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%, and the single parameter (appointment_group_id) is standard and self-explanatory. The description mentions 'participant_type=Group' which implies a filter on the response but doesn't clarify how this maps to parameters beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is suitable since schema carries the load.

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 is very clear with a specific verb-root and object ('List student groups'), it defines the exact resource being listed, and adds a crucial scoping detail ('that have reserved a slot in an appointment group (when participant_type=Group)'). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like list_appointment_group_users and list_appointment_groups.

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 clarifies when to use the tool (to list groups that have reserved a slot) and implies the alternative context by mentioning 'participant_type=Group'. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from, though the context is largely clear given the unique resource. A small deduction for not being more explicit about when not to use it.

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