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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe read nature, and the description is consistent with it. It adds the authentication scope and endpoint but does not describe any additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior or rate limits. The description adds some context beyond annotations but not a lot.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by an endpoint reference. Every word earns its place with no waste or redundant detail.

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?

This is a simple list operation with two pagination parameters and no output schema. The description, combined with the schema and annotations, gives enough context for a low-complexity tool. It does not detail the return format, but given the lack of an output schema, the meaning is still reasonably clear.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both page and limit, with schema description coverage at 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'list' plus the resource 'organizations' and specifies the scope ('the authenticated user belongs to'), distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_spaces and list_collections. The endpoint reference adds specificity.

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?

It provides clear context that this returns organizations for the authenticated user, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so guidance is somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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