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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content-level disclosure by enumerating the returned sections (locations, coaches, roles, assignments, pending invites), but says nothing about permissions needed, payload size, or pagination behavior.

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 with no waste; the resource contents are front-loaded and the prerequisite tip follows immediately.

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 tool with no output schema and one required param, the description adequately covers what comes back and where to get the id. Minor gaps remain around auth expectations and response shape, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

With a single parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the schema alone offers no meaning. The description compensates by explaining where to source the organizationId (list_my_organizations), which is exactly the missing guidance, though it doesn't describe the id's format.

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 resource (full org structure) and enumerates exactly what it contains: locations, coaches with roles and assigned locations, and pending invites. This composite scope implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like list_organization_locations or list_organization_coaches, though it never names them 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 clear context by directing the agent to list_my_organizations to obtain the required id, which is a real prerequisite. It does not, however, state when this composite fetch is preferable to calling the narrower list_* siblings, nor any exclusions.

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