list_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the tool read-only and explicitly safe (no secrets, no order-flow control), documents paging semantics (limit default 50, cap 500, 1-based page), explains that total counts pre-paging, notes the first-page default-group row that falls outside limit/total, and states that invalid values produce a validation error.

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?

Front-loaded with the return shape, then filters, sort, paging and error behavior in a logical order. It is dense and relies on semicolon-chained clauses, which costs some readability, but nearly every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 10-parameter, zero-required, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers scope, filtering, sorting, paging edge cases and failure behavior. Since an output schema exists, it correctly does not spend words explaining return field structure beyond row identity.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it enumerates the valid sort columns that the schema only gestures at ('one the tool description lists'), clarifies code matches code or title, and spells out the venue mode semantics including the omitted case. Remaining range/count fields are left to the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return one page of account groups,' and adds that each row is the group row of the REST group list. That makes it distinguishable from list_accounts, list_orders and the group mutators (create_group, update_group, delete_group) without needing the schema.

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 filter/sort enumeration, but the description never says when to reach for this versus alternatives or states prerequisites/exclusions. There is no 'use this when...' routing sentence, so the agent must infer intent from the name and filters.

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