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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds real behavioral context by defining the scope of 'linked people' (team members who accepted the org invitation, plus founders). It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or result size for large organizations, which keeps it below 5.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the return payload before the use case. The parenthetical enumeration of linked-person types is dense but earns its place by disambiguating the data.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so for all three payload components; the one input is fully documented in the schema and annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around response shape (pagination, when JSON-LD is absent), but nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the slug semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no format or edge cases), making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get an organization's SelfBadge page') and enumerates exactly what it returns: public facts, schema.org JSON-LD, and linked people. This cleanly separates it from the person-oriented siblings find_person/get_person without the agent needing to open either 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?

'Use it to check whether someone works at or founded an organization' gives a concrete selection context rather than an implied one. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g., using find_person to resolve the individual first), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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