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

The annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns roles and member counts, and scopes to the current user. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful output detail, though it could mention potential errors or edge cases.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of a clear listing statement and a usage note. No unnecessary verbosity or redundancy.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description explains the return content (role and member count) and the practical context. It is complete for the tool's intended use, including the error condition it helps avoid.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100%). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 clearly states the tool lists the organizations the current user belongs to, including role and member count. It also specifies a concrete use case (checking admin-or-above role) which distinguishes it from related tools like listMyTeams.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: to check if the user has an admin-or-above role before calling organization-scoped endpoints that reject lower roles with 403. This provides clear guidance on the appropriate context.

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