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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so 'Read-only, no inputs' repeats structured data rather than adding to it. The genuinely additive part is that the org is derived from the caller's token, meaning the agent cannot request an arbitrary org — useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, both load-bearing: the first defines the return value, the second defines when to call it. The primary action guidance is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must characterize the return value; it says 'id and details', which names the key field but leaves 'details' unspecified. For a simple no-input read tool this is close to sufficient, though an agent cannot predict the exact response shape.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description correctly confirms 'no inputs', which is the only parameter-relevant statement available for a no-arg tool.

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 ('Get the viaSocket organization (id and details)') plus the scoping mechanism (the signed-in user's token). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the downstream calls (List Plugins, Get Plugin, analytics) that need the value it returns.

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 an explicit rule: 'Call this first whenever you need the organization id ... instead of asking the user for it.' That states both the triggering condition and the behavior to avoid, leaving nothing to inference.

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