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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds context about the optional datasets inclusion and the source system (data.govt.nz CKAN), but does not disclose potential error behavior, rate limits, or other edge-case behaviors. This is similar to the get_calls example, where annotations cover the basics and the description adds some scope context, warranting a 3.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the key context (New Zealand open data catalogue) and directly explains the tool's purpose and optional behavior. There is no waste, and every phrase serves to inform the agent.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete. It covers the entity type, the lookup method, and the optional datasets behavior. No additional return-value explanation is needed because the output schema is present, and the tool's simplicity does not require further contextual detail.

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 input schema has no descriptions for its parameters (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining both: 'by ID' for the id parameter and 'optionally their list of published datasets' for include_datasets. This provides the necessary semantic meaning beyond the raw schema and is sufficient for an agent to understand parameter usage.

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's function: showing a full profile for a publishing organization by ID, including name, description, and optionally published datasets. It uses a specific verb+resource structure and is easily distinguished from siblings like organization_list (which lists organizations) and group_show (which shows groups).

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 description implicitly conveys when to use this tool: when you have an organization ID and need detailed profile information, possibly including its datasets. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context (New Zealand open data catalogue) and the focus on a single organization by ID make the usage scenario clear.

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