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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the exact response payload, the caller's own identity, and the connection's grant including whether it is read-only or read-write and how to change it. It omits auth requirements, failure modes, and rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource, then lists return fields. It is dense and every clause carries information, though the trailing parenthetical about the grant makes the sentence long and slightly hard to parse on first read.

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?

Zero required parameters, no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields — precisely what an agent needs in the absence of a return schema. The schema covers the one input, so nothing an agent needs to call this 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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter is documented thoroughly in the schema, including the OAuth/API-key default and the legacy multi-org exception. The description itself adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a precise verb ('Returns one organisation') and then enumerates exactly what that single record contains: slug, name, plan, billing state, member count, SSO status, caller identity, and grant scope. An agent can immediately distinguish it from the plural sibling list_organisations.

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 states no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. The real routing guidance lives in the parameter schema ('from list_organisations', 'Leave it out...'), not the description, so usage is only implied by the singular-vs-plural naming.

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