list_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden; the verb "List" clearly indicates a read-only operation, and "in the active company" discloses the implicit scope dependency. It does not describe error behavior when no active company exists or the exact structure of the returned hierarchy, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is a modest gap.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence clearly states the action, resource, semantic clarification, and scope. The parenthetical examples earn their place by resolving ambiguity with ledger categories, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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-parameter listing tool, the description is largely complete: it names what is listed, what those things are, and the active-company context. The absence of an output schema means a note about the expected return shape would have been helpful, but the tool's simplicity and clear name keep this from being a major gap.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Description scope like "in the active company" is contextual rather than parameter-related, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools 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 uses a specific verb and resource: "List all ledger groups" and further clarifies the domain with examples like Sundry Debtors and Current Assets. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like list_ledgers, which likely operate at a different level of the accounting hierarchy.

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 implies this is the tool for retrieving the account classification hierarchy rather than individual ledgers, but it does not explicitly state when to use list_groups versus list_ledgers or other sibling tools. The 'in the active company' qualifier gives useful context but no direct alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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