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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that the response carries members, plan and billing details, but says nothing about authorization requirements for accessing billing data or error behavior for an unknown id.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the payload. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with 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 an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is small. Mentioning the included member/plan/billing sections is the main piece of context an agent needs to decide to call it.

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% and the single orgId parameter is fully documented as a uuid. The description reinforces that lookup is by id but adds no format, validation, or failure semantics, so the 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 one organization) scoped to a single record by id, and enumerates the returned payload (members, plan, billing summary). It is clearly distinct from create_org/delete_org/rename_org, though it doesn't name list_orgs as the alternative for bulk retrieval.

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 phrase 'by id' implies this tool is for single-record lookups when an id is already known, and the sibling list_orgs covers enumeration. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, so the agent must infer the split between get_org and list_orgs.

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