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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the data source (Chilean CKAN catalogue) and the include_datasets option, but does not disclose error behavior or operational quirks, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the data source and immediately states the tool's purpose and key parameters. Every word adds value with no 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?

For a simple show tool with only 2 parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the optional subscription toggle, and the source. It doesn't need to explain return values because an output schema exists.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'id' is the organization identifier and 'include_datasets' toggles the list of datasets. It does not specify the exact format of the ID, but examples in the schema provide reasonable context. This is good compensation for the schema gap.

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 provides a 'full profile for a publishing organization by ID', listing name, description, and optionally datasets. This distinguishes it from siblings like organization_list and group_show, which serve different resource types.

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 implies the tool is for looking up a single organization by ID but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not state when not to use it, such as when you need a list of all organizations (organization_list).

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