zid_search_groups

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

The description adds that it returns 'curated group summaries' and explains the meaning of empty results, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose, and no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description's mention of 'curated group summaries' is suitable. It covers search behavior and result interpretation adequately for a read-only search tool.

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 description adds meaning for the 'name' parameter (case-insensitive partial match) but does not elaborate on limit, offset, or query beyond what the schema provides. With 25% schema coverage, the description partially compensates.

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 clearly states it searches ZIdentity groups by name with case-insensitive partial match. It distinguishes from siblings like zid_list_groups (list all) and zid_search_users (search users) by specifying the resource and search behavior.

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?

Explicitly notes that the tool is read-only and provides guidance on empty results: 'do not retry with split keywords or no filter.' This sets clear expectations for when to use and when not, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like zid_list_groups.

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