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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns membership details and pending invitations, and explicitly notes that accepting invitations must happen in the web app, not through this tool. This clarifies both the data scope and an important limitation without contradicting the annotation.

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?

The description is three sentences with no fluff: the first lists output fields, the second explains the organization concept, and the third tells how to apply the result. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant info is front-loaded.

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 well by naming the returned fields and including pending invitations. It also connects this tool to the broader workflow by showing how organizationId feeds into create_project and get_account_status. Nothing critical for a caller 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?

The only parameter, context, has a full schema description explaining what to provide, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds nothing about the parameter, but the schema already carries that burden; the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('the organizations this account belongs to'), then enumerates the exact fields returned (id, name, role, is_personal, plan, member_count). It also distinguishes itself from sibling list_* tools by focusing on organizational membership and pending invitations.

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?

The description explains when this tool's output matters: plans, credits, and usage limits are per-organization, and projects belong to exactly one organization. It gives concrete guidance to pass an organizationId to create_project or get_account_status, though it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus an alternative.

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