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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by stating the outcome: 'Returns the new org's public view plus your role (owner).' It also mentions constraints (karma, cap) that are not in annotations. No contradictions found.

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?

The description is three sentences long, with the core action stated first. Every sentence adds necessary information (constraints, return value), with no wasted words or fluff.

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?

The tool has an output schema (implied), all parameters are well-documented in the input schema, and the description covers constraints, side effects (becoming owner), and the return structure. The description is fully adequate for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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%; all three parameters (name, slug, description) have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create an organisation — you become its first owner.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('organisation'), and distinguishes from siblings like colony_org_get, colony_org_rename, etc., which manage existing orgs.

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 provides context by mentioning prerequisites: 'Requires a minimum karma balance and is capped per founder per 24 hours.' This tells the agent when it's appropriate to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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