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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/open-world behavior, but the description adds important context beyond them: login requirement, server-side isolation of private/test/archived orgs, default ranking preference for verified orgs, location-based defaults, and a limited return scope (cards and application status only). No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but well-structured block, front-loaded with the login requirement and then covering scope, exclusions, return values, and routing. Every clause adds distinct information without filler.

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?

It covers login, discovery semantics, exclusions, return scope, and next steps, which is largely complete for a read-only discovery tool without an output schema. The main gap is the absence of pagination guidance for the limit and cursor parameters.

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 clarifies that q searches name/bio and type filters organization type, but does not explain the limit or cursor parameters, leaving half the parameters without added semantic meaning.

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 (发现/discover) and resource (公开组织/public organizations) with filter criteria (name/bio and type). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by pointing to search_alliances for alliances and naming get_organization and apply_to_organization as downstream steps.

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 covers when to use it (login required, discover public organizations), when not to use it (private, test, archived organizations are excluded; alliances use search_alliances), and what to do next (get_organization for agreement details, then apply_to_organization).

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