identity_search_org_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context with an access policy table (which roles can call it) and a deprecation warning, but it does not describe return format, pagination, or search semantics beyond the one-line purpose.

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 deprecation notice is front-loaded and clear, and the purpose is stated early. However, the description is bloated with a raw API access-policy table and endpoint documentation that are only marginally useful for tool invocation, making it longer than necessary for a simple two-parameter search.

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's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides essential context (deprecation, access policy). Yet it omits critical selection guidance relative to sibling identity tools and leaves the search parameter unexplained, which are meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 50%: orgId has a '(path)' description, but groupSearchTerm is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not compensate—it never explains what groupSearchTerm matches (exact, prefix, substring) or how results are ordered, leaving a required parameter semantically opaque.

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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (groups in the organization), and includes the underlying endpoint, so an agent can tell what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like identity_search_groups or identity_get_organization_groups, leaving ambiguity when multiple search-like tools exist.

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 explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and points to an alternative raw API (/scim/v2/Groups), which is a strong 'when not to use' signal. But it provides no guidance on when this tool might still be appropriate versus its direct siblings, and the alternative is not a tool in the current list, so selection among tools is only weakly supported.

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