list_account_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by naming the returned fields (id, name, connectionCount, isDefault, connections) in the absence of an output schema, and by clarifying that connections are embedded in the response.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by the domain concept and the return shape. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 zero-param, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, concept, and return fields, which is close to everything needed to call it. It stops short of mentioning result ordering, pagination, or what an empty list means, which are minor for a small per-user collection.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a global, unfiltered listing rather than a filtered one.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List account groups'), names the product, and gives concrete examples of groups plus their purpose (bundling social connections for targeting). It does not explicitly contrast with the singular sibling get_account_group, which is the only differentiation gap.

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?

Usage is implied by the explanation that groups let you target multiple accounts in one create_post call, which hints at when to reach for this tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to get_account_group for single-group detail or create_account_group for setup.

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