Garoon Get Facility Groups

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint=true annotation, and no contradiction exists. Beyond the annotations, the description adds that limit and offset are optional, but this information is already present in the input schema, so no additional behavioral context (e.g., default pagination behavior, ordering) is disclosed.

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 one concise sentence that communicates the action, resource, source, and key optional parameters without unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 list tool with two optional parameters, a present output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is mostly complete. It adequately indicates what data is returned and the pagination knobs, though it could have noted that it returns all facility groups when no filters are applied, which would have made it more complete.

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 100%, with both limit and offset already fully described including ranges and defaults. The description merely mentions 'optional limit and offset parameters' without adding any semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('facility groups data from Garoon'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get-facilities or get-facilities-in-group, but the resource name itself differentiates it from those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The description only states what it does, without mentioning related tools (e.g., get-facilities, get-facilities-in-group) or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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