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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: caller becomes owner, the per-owner cap of 5 organizations, and the seat-purchase path for inviting members.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with no filler. The billing-settings sentence is slightly tangential but still actionable, keeping it just shy of a 5.

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 simple one-parameter create tool with annotations covering the mutation profile and no output schema, the description supplies the ownership semantics and quota limit an agent would otherwise lack. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'name' parameter, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no syntax, constraints or format for the name, so it sits at the baseline of 3.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create a new organization') with an added side-effect ('You become its owner'), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like create_organization_team or create_org_api_key, 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 implied by the resource itself, and it does describe a follow-on flow ('To invite people, the owner buys Pro seats in Wavelength Settings, Organization, Billing'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so guidance remains implied rather than directive.

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