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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: an authorization constraint (owner/admin only) and the window over which usage is aggregated, both of which affect whether a call will succeed.

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 tight sentences. The returned metrics are front-loaded, followed by the time window and the permission gate, with no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does by enumerating the six metric categories returned per member. Combined with annotations covering safety and the schema covering parameters, an agent has everything needed to select and call this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with both params documented, including the enum-like days values and the org_id source (list_organizations). The description restates the 7/30/90 window but adds no format, default, or error semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 and resource (get organization usage) and enumerates exactly what is returned: seats used, active members, AI calls, mic minutes, flows, and two-step verification status. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_org_audit_log, get_org_security, and get_insights without needing to open any 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?

Gives the supported time windows (last 7, 30, or 90 days) and a hard prerequisite: only an owner or admin can see it. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say when not to use it, but the context and permission gate are clear enough to invoke correctly.

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