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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the required cross_org privilege level, the pagination mechanism, the default page size of 50, and the termination condition. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a read-only list tool.

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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with purpose and access requirement before the pagination mechanics. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the fields returned and fully describing the cursor lifecycle. Nothing needed to page through results correctly is missing.

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 cursor and limit parameters are already documented, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the round-trip contract - nextCursor from the response is fed back as the cursor input - and that a null nextCursor signals the last page.

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 (every organization on the platform), and immediately scopes it as cross-tenant with the returned fields (owner email, member count, pending invite status). No sibling tool lists orgs, so an agent can tell this is the only cross-tenant org enumeration available.

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?

Provides a clear precondition for use - platform-admin (cross_org) access - which lets an agent decide whether it is eligible to call it. It does not name an alternative or state when NOT to use it, but no sibling tool overlaps with org listing, so the missing exclusions are low-impact.

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