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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying the required authentication scope ('content_only') and the exact shape of the result set. This helps the agent understand prerequisites and output contents without over-explaining.

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 two sentences with no filler: the primary behavior is front-loaded, followed by concrete use cases and the authentication requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool with a rich output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description provides the essential missing context: what the tool returns, when to use it, and what auth is required. Nothing critical is left unstated.

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%, so both parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 and resource ('Returns all organizations the authenticated user belongs to') and enumerates the returned fields (role, display count, member count, allocated slots). This clearly distinguishes it from singular-fetch tools like get_organization and from other list tools focused on different resources.

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 explicitly names concrete use cases: answering questions about the user's organizations, display counts, and team membership. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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