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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint — the org must be one the user belongs to (an authorization boundary). It says nothing about what is returned or how missing/permission-denied cases behave.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource and appending the scoping constraint. Nothing to trim and nothing reordered.

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 one-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety, the description is nearly sufficient; the membership restriction is the key extra fact. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not hint at what 'details' comprise.

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 ('Organization id.'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no extra meaning such as where to source the id or whether slugs are accepted; 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 ('show the details') and resource ('an organization'), plus an access scope ('the user belongs to'), which separates it in practice from create_organization, update_organization and delete_organization. It never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single org's details when you have its id and the user is a member. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion such as 'for members of an org use list_organization_members', and no note on how to obtain the required id.

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