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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds meaningful behavioral details: 'Returns that object directly — no envelope, no cursors,' and 'Billing identifiers and trial fields are never included.' It also explains the fixed-by-credentials property, which is not inferable from the schema or 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, each carrying a distinct purpose: returned fields, return format and exclusions, and parameter/scope constraint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, exclusions, return envelope, and scope. It gives an agent everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result, despite not mentioning error behavior.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is already high. The description adds value by explaining why no arguments are needed ('the organization is fixed by the caller’s credentials'), making the empty parameter schema meaningful rather than accidental.

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 ('Read this organization’s own record') and lists the exact fields returned (id, name, slug, plan, non-secret settings). It also clarifies scope by noting the organization is fixed by credentials, differentiating it from sibling getters like team__get and member__get.

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 clearly scopes the tool to the caller's own organization and explicitly states 'there is no way to read a different one,' which is a when-not condition. However, it does not name alternative tools for reading other resources, so it falls just short of the top tier that requires explicit alternatives.

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