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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Resolve' and 'Read this before a write') and gives a concrete detail about the response ('An organization API key answers `kind: api_key` with its scopes.'). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or what happens when no active organization is set, but for a context-resolution tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a critical usage warning. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines what it does, the second explains when and why to use it, and the final detail about API keys adds practical context. No 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to understand when to call it and what kind of response to expect. It mentions the API key response type but doesn't specify the full return structure (e.g., organization ID, name). Still, for a simple context tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds value by explaining the tool's output behavior ('An organization API key answers `kind: api_key` with its scopes.'), which helps the agent interpret the result. Since there are no params, the baseline is high, and the description contributes context beyond the empty schema.

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: 'Resolve the active organization identity.' This is a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('active organization identity'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like commsharbor_me or commsharbor_organization_get by focusing on the active tenant context. It also frames its use case ('before a write when you are not certain which tenant is active'), which makes it unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Read this before a write when you are not certain which tenant is active.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it. It also warns against guessing, which clarifies the risk of not using it. While it doesn't list alternative tools, the context is clear enough that the agent knows this is the go-to for tenant disambiguation.

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