provider_query_user_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the underlying REST path; it says nothing about pagination behavior, what a 'group reference' contains, permissions required, or size of the result set for a user in many groups.

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 first two sentences are near-duplicates ('list of groups' vs 'list of references of groups'), which risks confusing whether full group objects or bare references are returned. The trailing raw endpoint is boilerplate already present in the annotation title, so roughly a third of the text is redundant.

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?

With no output schema and six parameters, the description carries responsibility for explaining the return shape, but 'references of groups' is left undefined and pagination semantics (page is 'zero offset' yet defaults to 1) are never reconciled. For a paginated enumeration tool this leaves too much for the agent to guess.

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 six parameters including filter (FIQL), sortAsc/sortDesc and page/pageSize are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond the schema — it references 'the given id' without discussing userUrn's URN format or how filter/sort interact with the paged result.

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?

Stated as a specific verb+resource: 'Get a list of groups that the user with the given id belongs to', which an agent can map directly onto a query operation. However, it offers no differentiation from related siblings such as provider_query_group_users (the inverse direction), provider_modify_user_groups, or identity_get_logged_in_user_groups_on_org, so the agent must infer which one applies.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the directly comparable siblings the agent must choose between (query_group_users, get_group, approvals_get_logged_in_user_groups). Usage is only implied by the tool name and the raw HTTP path.

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