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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the sentence 'Read-only.' adds no structured-value beyond what is already given. The useful addition is the scope statement that results are limited to the caller's own company organizations, consistent with openWorldHint=false, but return shape and volume are not described.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted clauses. The standalone 'Read-only.' sentence duplicates the annotations, so it does not fully earn its place.

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?

For a parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns conceptually (the caller's organizations) and when to reach for it. Details like ordering or result size are unspecified but low-stakes for this complexity level.

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. There is nothing parameter-specific the description needs to compensate for, and it correctly implies no filtering options exist.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List the caller's company organizations (accounts) from the ERP', with a parenthetical defining what an organization is. It scopes the result to the caller's company, which distinguishes it from an unrestricted org search, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like erp_get_company or erp_create_organization.

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?

'Use to find or reference an organization (supplier, partner, client company)' gives a concrete usage context and enumerates the entity types it covers. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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