List Outcome Group Subgroups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without description support. The description adds only the hierarchical scoping ('immediate child'), which is useful context but does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination, ordering, or how deep the traversal goes, so value beyond the annotations is modest.

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?

A single 14-word sentence states the action, the target resource, and the relationship in one pass. The key concept ('immediate child') is front-loaded and no words are wasted, making it an exemplar of conciseness rather than under-specification.

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 listing tool, the combination of 100% parameter documentation, readOnly/openWorld annotations, and a clear one-line scope description is largely sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The only shortfall is the absence of any output shape or return-list guidance, though this is inferable for a list tool and the annotations already carry the safety profile.

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%, so the schema already documents context_type, context_id, and outcome_group_id with meaningful descriptions and an enum for context_type. The description adds nothing beyond reinforcing that outcome_group_id references the parent group, so the baseline of 3 applies without additional compensation.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('immediate child outcome groups'), and the parent relationship ('under a specific outcome group'). The qualifier 'immediate' differentiates it from list_outcome_groups, get_outcome_group, and list_outcome_group_outcomes without needing to inspect any schemas.

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 word 'immediate' implies a hierarchy-navigation use case, and the sibling set includes closely related tools like get_root_outcome_group, list_outcome_groups, and list_outcome_group_outcomes that an agent could confuse it with. However, the description never explicitly states when to choose this tool over those alternatives or when not to use it, so guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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