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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a hard 50-item page cap, cursor-based continuation, result ordering, and the fields present in each item. That is meaningful disclosure for a read tool.

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 tight sentences: what it lists and ordering first, then pagination mechanics, then the role it plays in the workflow. Nothing is redundant and the most important routing hint is placed last as an actionable instruction.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description names the returned fields (id, name, user role) and explains the pagination contract, which is exactly the information needed to consume results. For a one-parameter read tool this is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single `cursor` param is fully documented in the schema. The description restates the continuation flow ('follow nextCursor'), which is mildly useful but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so baseline 3 applies.

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', newest-first ordering). An agent can distinguish it from get-organization-tool, create-organization-tool, and delete-organization-tool without consulting schemas.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the entry point for discovering ids needed by other tools, which is genuine routing guidance in a 60+ sibling environment. It stops short of naming a specific alternative or an exclusion, so it misses the top band.

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