List Space Groups

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the bounded nature of all_pages and that every page consumes API quota. It stops short of describing return shape or failure modes.

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 the tool's identity before behavioral notes. No filler, though the quota point appears in both the description and the all_pages schema entry, a minor redundancy.

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 six-parameter list tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers pagination strategy and quota cost but says nothing about what a space group is or what a result looks like. Annotations cover safety, but the return/pagination semantics rest entirely on the schema.

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 schema already documents all six parameters, including the quota note on all_pages. The description's mention of bounded all_pages and quota consumption largely restates the schema rather than adding new semantics, so 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+resource ("List Space Groups") and is distinguishable from siblings such as list_space_group_members, get_space_group, and list_spaces. It does not explicitly say how it differs from those neighbors, but the resource naming is precise enough for selection.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_spaces, list_space_group_members, or get_space_group. "Reads community data" is a category hint, not usage guidance, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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