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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value beyond them by disclosing that the call triggers a PropelAuth membership refresh throttled to once per user per minute. That rate-limit and side-effect detail is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then layered with usage triggers, handling rules, and the rate limit. Every sentence carries distinct information and none restates the title or annotations.

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 tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, nothing material is missing: the description covers when to call it, how to present and reuse results, and the throttling behavior. Return-value structure is correctly left to the output schema.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still explains how the returned organization_id should be used internally in later calls, which adds useful meaning around the output contract even though no inputs exist to document.

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 precise verb and resource ('Return the organizations the authenticated user can currently access in Segwise'), which is a distinct resource from the sibling query tools (get_segwise_query, start_segwise_query), 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?

It names three concrete triggering conditions: the user asking which organizations exist, wanting to switch organizations, or having been recently added to one. It also gives a presentation rule (show names, keep organization_id internal, never ask the user to type an ID), so both selection and follow-up behavior are specified.

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