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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: results are restricted to active memberships and each row carries role and organizationId, which tells the agent what it will and won't see.

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?

Two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by example intents and the cross-tool linkage. The bilingual example is arguably slightly longer than necessary but earns its place for intent matching; nothing is padded.

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 input parameters, an output schema present, and rich annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and call it: purpose, membership scope, returned fields, and how the result feeds the recording tools. Only the absence of an explicit alternative comparison keeps it from full marks.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs. The description instead reuses the org id as a downstream filter for the recording tools, which is a useful but separate hint.

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 ('Lists the Kalima organizations') plus the scope qualifier 'the user is an active member of' and the key returned fields (role, organizationId). It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_projects/list_workspaces/list_teams by resource, but never names those siblings to rule them out explicitly.

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?

Provides concrete trigger phrasing ('which organizations am I in', 'zu welcher Organisation gehöre ich') so an agent can match user intent directly. It also adds a forward-pointer that the returned id is the organizationId filter for the recording tools, which is real routing value; it stops short of stating when NOT to use it.

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