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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the call is scoped to the authenticated member's email, that the result includes every org/profile they can act as, and that the response shape matches verify. It does not explicitly confirm there are no side effects, but 'List' and the framing make the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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 with no filler. The core capability is front-loaded, the output shape is referenced efficiently, and the intended use case is stated in a single clause.

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 single-optional-parameter read-style tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, who it lists for, what shape the response takes, and when to reach for it. It could add a little more about failure or empty-result behavior, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 already documents owner_key fully, including its optionality and Authorization header fallback. The description adds useful usage context about holding one owner_key and discovering others, but it does not need to add much because schema coverage is 100%.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every organization/profile the authenticated member's email belongs to.' It also differentiates itself from verify by referencing the same profiles[] shape and by positioning itself as the discovery entry point when the caller already holds one owner_key.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to discover other orgs when the client already has one owner_key. It does not name when-not conditions or alternative tools besides referencing verify for output shape, so it falls just short of the top score.

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