incident_detection_groups__list_detection_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered and the bar is lower. Beyond that the description adds essentially nothing — no pagination behavior, no statement about result size or ordering — so it only repeats the endpoint path.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the resource and endpoint come first. It is slightly redundant, restating "detection group" list semantics in the second clause, but no sentence is wasted.

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 7-filter list endpoint with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it does not say what a returned item looks like, whether pagination tokens or totals are included, or how the mutually exclusive-looking deviceUuid/cloudOfficeTenantUuid filters interact. An agent must fall back entirely on the schema to call it correctly.

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 every one of the 7 parameters (fields, startTime/endTime, pageSize, pageToken, deviceUuid, cloudOfficeTenantUuid) is already documented in detail in the schema. The description contributes only the phrase "matching criteria" and adds no semantics beyond it, which matches the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List detection groups") plus the underlying endpoint GET /v2/detection-groups, which is clear and distinguishable from incident_detection_groups__get_detection_group by the list-vs-single framing. However it never names that sibling or otherwise differentiates the scope explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance: no statement that it should be used to enumerate/filter groups versus fetching one by ID, no note that all filters are optional and combine additively, and no guidance on when to prefer latest_detections or eset_search for detection-level lookups. "Matching criteria" only hints that filters exist.

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