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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: users can belong to multiple orgs, search spans org name, active owner name and owner email, and the response includes IDs and owner contacts.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then search/return scope, then the required workflow step. The sentence about users belonging to multiple organizations earns its place by explaining why a list call is needed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still notes that IDs and owner contacts come back. The only meaningful omission is pagination guidance for page/page_size.

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 50%: search is documented in the schema and echoed in the description, and organization_id is implicitly explained by the 'supply organization_id on subsequent tools' line. The page and page_size parameters receive no explanation in either place, so the description only partially compensates.

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 and resource (list organizations) plus the access scope ('you can access') and the searchable fields, so the agent knows exactly what the call returns and how it can be narrowed. No sibling tool competes for this capability, so differentiation is inherent.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to ask the human which organization to use and to pass organization_id to subsequent tools, which is clear workflow guidance. It does not, however, mention when this is preferable to a sibling like get_account for org resolution.

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