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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds the REST mapping (GET /orgs) and the auth scope, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering despite having page/limit parameters.

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 brief sentences, zero waste. The scope constraint and the endpoint mapping are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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, annotated, read-only list endpoint with fully documented parameters, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not hint at the returned shape, which is minor for a low-risk list call.

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 description coverage is 100% with both page ('1-based page number') and limit ('Results per page') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or range information beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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') and scopes it to the authenticated user, which lets an agent distinguish it from the space/collection/change-request siblings at a glance. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it is not, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 'organizations the authenticated user belongs to' clause is implied usage guidance: it tells the agent this returns only the caller's orgs, not all orgs in the instance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so it is minimum-viable at 3.

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