List Appointment Group Groups

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

The description and annotations (readOnlyHint=true) align, indicating a safe read operation. The description discloses the core behavior of listing groups with reservations but doesn't elaborate on edge cases, such as what happens for appointment groups that are not participant_type=Group, or whether only groups with reservations appear (which the word 'reserved' implies). Since the annotations already cover read-only semantics, the text adds the participant_type constraint but little else, so 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 sentence, front-loads the verb and resource ('List student groups'), and packs the distinguishing condition ('when participant_type=Group') into a parenthetical. No filler or repetition of the endpoint name or schema. It earns a 5 for clarity and efficiency.

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?

With one parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the main intent and a key usage condition (participant_type=Group). However, it doesn't mention whether the result includes group details, only IDs, or what happens if the appointment group is of another participant type. The agent has enough to know when to call the endpoint and what id to pass, but not the full behavior in edge cases.

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 high: the only parameter is id, which in the schema just shows a number and requiredness. The description tells the agent which appointment group to query (the one with identifier id) but adds the participant_type=Group condition, signaling that the id must refer to a group-based appointment group. The name and description together make the single parameter's role obvious, so no further syntax documentation is needed.

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 uses the specific verb

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 includes the conditional scoping 'when participant_type=Group', which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate: only for appointment groups configured with group participants. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling list_appointment_group_users as the alternative for the User case, but the condition is enough to route selection in most cases. No other usage caveats or prerequisites are given, so not a 5.

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