List resource groups

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. The description adds only that the result carries id and name; it says nothing about pagination behavior or the size/ordering characteristics of the result set, which the schema only partly covers.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what a resource group is and followed by the practical usage hint. No filler, though the second sentence is thin enough that it could carry a bit more substance.

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 read-only list tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose schema fully documents parameters, the definition is nearly sufficient; it names the returned fields and the downstream identifier. Only pagination/ordering expectations are left implicit.

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 all five parameters (start, order_by, group_ids, max_results, include_contact_details) are already documented. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 resource groups) and clarifies what a group is plus what is returned (id and name). It lacks explicit sibling differentiation beyond a passing mention of availability searches, but an agent can still tell what it retrieves.

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?

"Useful as resource_group_id in the availability searches" implies the downstream use case and loosely routes toward find_available_intervals/find_available_dates, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not framing, and no mention of alternatives for listing groups.

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