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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: membership and invitation contents, the sorting order, the meaning of the default marker, that invitation codes are never exposed, and the account-connection prerequisite. It does not mention pagination or result limits, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then layered with return contents, filtering, and prerequisites in a compact block. Sentences are information-dense and mostly earn their place, though the opening clause about the default org is slightly syntactically heavy.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well: it enumerates members and pending invitations and withholds invitation codes. Combined with the prerequisite and parameter behavior, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100% and already documents org_name, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the cross-tool significance of the returned names ('Use the names here as org_name on the other tools') and the consequence of omitting it, adding semantics the schema does not carry.

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 ('List the Valet organizations the account belongs to') and adds defining scope details: sorted by name, default org marked. No sibling in the list covers organizations, so there is no ambiguity to resolve, and an agent instantly knows what this returns.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Pass org_name to list one organization' and 'Use the names here as org_name on the other tools', which routes the agent across the toolset, plus a prerequisite ('Requires connecting a Valet account'). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause, but there is no competing sibling for org listing, so this is close to complete.

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