Get Facilities In Group

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which already cover safety (read-only) and closed-world expectations. The description adds the optional limit/offset behavior, which is a mild behavioral detail. It doesn't elaborate on pagination semantics or error cases, but given annotations are present, the bar is met.

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, efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose. It conveys the essential action without waste.

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 the tool is a simple read operation with a clear output schema, the description plus annotations and schema provide sufficient context. The only minor gap is lack of explicit pagination details, but that is covered by the parameter descriptions. The output schema exists, so return value details are not needed in the description.

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 parameters (facilityGroupId, limit, offset) are well-documented in the schema with types, defaults, and patterns. The description simply mentions 'optional limit and offset' without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 clearly states the tool retrieves facilities belonging to a specific facility group, which is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like get-facilities (all facilities) and get-facility-groups (groups only). The verb 'get' and resource are identified, though the title already implies this.

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 provides a basic context of what it does (list facilities in a group) but does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings. The sibling list includes get-facilities and get-facility-groups, but the description does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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