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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read, so the description focuses on what annotations cannot express: the organizations:read scope requirement, API-key-owner semantics, and hard isolation between organizations (separate plan, music, videos, Looks, credits). Auth and scoping context is genuinely additive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement before the type/current/switch explanations. The prose is dense — one sentence carries the whole org-isolation explanation via semicolons — but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description has to carry the return-value semantics, and it does: it defines type (artist vs. label), the current marker, and per-user role. Nothing needed to interpret the result 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies and nothing needs documenting. The description instead explains the meaning of the response-side fields it will return (role, type, current).

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?

Opens with a precise verb-scoped statement: 'The organizations you belong to, your role in each and the one these credentials act for.' That distinguishes it from get_account, create_organization, and update_organization among the siblings without naming them.

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?

Explains the two access contexts (signed-in person vs. API key, which resolves to the key's creator) and tells the agent how to act in a different organization. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool or stating when not to call it, so it sits just below a 5.

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