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 genuinely new behavior: ordering ('newest first'), page size ('up to 50 per page'), and the pagination contract ('follow nextCursor'). It stops short of stating what happens on an invalid cursor or whether the list is scoped to the active organization/workspace.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then pagination, then return fields, then routing guidance. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields (id, name, role) and explaining the pagination loop. For a one-parameter, read-only list tool this covers everything an agent needs to call it and consume the result 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% and the single cursor parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of `nextCursor` usefully ties the parameter to the response field name, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the organizations you belong to') plus a scope qualifier ('you belong to') and an ordering guarantee ('newest first'). The resource is unique among siblings, so an agent can tell this apart from list-brands-tool or list-projects-tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Use this as the entry point to discover ids for other tools,' which tells the agent when to reach for it. It does not name exclusions or competing alternatives (e.g., when to use list-users-tool instead), but the resource is distinct enough that this is a minor gap.

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