List Outcome Group Outcomes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and scope profile is covered. The description adds little extra behavioral context, such as whether results are paginated or sorted, but the read-only nature is implied via annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise and no filler, though it could be slightly more specific about the scope ('directly under') which adds precision without length.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and annotations cover safety, the description is adequate but not thorough. It does not explain the return structure (e.g., list of outcome objects) or whether it includes nested outcomes, which could be ambiguous for an agent. However, the complexity is moderate and the schema covers parameters well.

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 input schema has 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the three required parameters but does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as how outcome_style affects the output or default values. It does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 it lists linked outcomes under a specific outcome group, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('outcome group outcomes'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_outcome_group_subgroups' and 'get_outcome_group', though it could explicitly name those alternatives for clarity.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'specific outcome group' and requiring context_type, context_id, and outcome_group_id, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like 'list_outcome_group_links' or 'get_outcome'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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