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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the relational context that downstream tools depend on this output, but says nothing about pagination (the continuation param) or the shape/count of results.

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?

Two short sentences plus the raw endpoint, with the return-value dependency front-loaded ahead of the HTTP detail. Nothing extraneous.

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 no-required-param, read-only list tool with a fully documented schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and explains why it matters in the workflow. It does not describe the returned fields, which an agent must infer from downstream usage.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'continuation' fully. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline here.

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 organizations you are a member of') and scopes it to the caller's memberships. The added note that other tools consume an organization_id from here further distinguishes it from the many create/get/list siblings.

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 frames this as the entry point ('Almost every other tool needs an organization_id from here'), which tells an agent to call it before org-scoped tools. It stops short of stating when not to call it or naming a specific alternative, but the sequencing guidance is clear.

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