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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — result scope is determined by the credential type and OAuth connections are pinned to the consent-time organization. It stops short of disclosing ordering, pagination, or error behavior for large org sets.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the credential-dependent scoping rules. No filler or restatement 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so at a high level (organizations plus the acting role). It is sufficient to call correctly, though it omits whether the list is paginated or ordered.

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 and the description correctly implies a parameterless call — nothing is expected of the caller. Baseline 4 applies since there is no parameter surface to document.

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 ('List the organizations this access token can reach') and adds the payload content ('with the role it acts as in each'). No sibling tool operates on organizations, so there is no ambiguity to resolve against the surrounding list_* tools.

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 token-type breakdown (personal vs. organization vs. OAuth) tells the agent exactly what result set to expect in each auth context, which is effectively the 'when you get what' guidance. It does not name alternatives or say when not to call it, but there is no plausible alternative for this resource.

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