List groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: 'read live from WhatsApp' signals fresh (not cached) data, and it explains the communityId/default output semantics. It doesn't mention pagination/latency behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded, then output-field semantics, then the sibling pointer. Every clause earns its place, no 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value meaning; it does cover the notable output fields (participant count, communityId, default). It stops short of describing the paginated envelope (nextCursor), which the cursor param implies but the description never states, leaving a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, cursor, and accountId are already documented in-schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, which is the correct baseline of 3 here.

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 (list) and resource (groups) with explicit scope: 'Every group the account is in, read live from WhatsApp.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_group, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Names the sibling alternative and the condition selecting it: 'Use get_group for the participants.' This gives clear routing context, though it doesn't spell out when-not to use list_groups (e.g., cost/latency of listing everything) or broader trade-offs.

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