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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by explaining that an API key restricts the result to its own organization and by defining the 'current' and 'Personal' concepts. It stops short of describing ordering or edge cases, but covers the traits that affect interpretation.

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?

Five short, front-loaded sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (contents, definitions, key behavior, cost, prerequisites). Nothing repeats the name or title, and the telegram style keeps it scannable.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does: organizations, your role in each, and which is current. Auth and API-key scoping are covered; only minor details like result ordering or empty-list behavior are absent, which is acceptable for a trivial read.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description reinforces this by framing the result as implicitly scoped ('this call acts in', 'with a key this lists that one') rather than implying any input options.

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?

Opens with a specific resource ('The organizations you belong to') and states the fields returned (role, current marker). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like list_teams or list_members, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides auth prerequisites ('Needs an API key or a connected account') and cost ('Free'), which tells an agent whether it can call it, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or point to alternative org/team-scoped tools.

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