List Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that: the required OAuth scope and that pagination is 'bounded opaque page_token' retrieval — but it does not disclose quota cost, ordering guarantees, or what a 'group' actually is.

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, purpose first, then source, then retrieval mode and scope — well front-loaded with no padding. The sentence 'Reads Calendly data' is largely redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, a minor waste but not enough to drop below 4.

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 read-only list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination mode and required scope, which is close to adequate. It omits what a group represents and how the returned collection relates to organizations, which matters for an agent choosing between this and the group-relationship siblings.

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% across all six parameters, including nuanced notes on account credential selection, all_pages quota consumption and max_items continuation state. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List Groups') and names the data source ('Reads Calendly data'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_group or list_group_relationships, leaving the agent to infer the difference from names alone.

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 only guidance is an implicit prerequisite ('Required scopes: groups:read'), which tells the agent what credentials are needed but not when to pick this tool over list_group_relationships or get_group. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing.

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