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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation ('list') and adds the API endpoint ('Forge v2: GET /orgs'). No contradictions. The additional API detail provides mild extra behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise—only two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and importance, and the second provides optional API context. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, its role as a prerequisite, and how to use the result (get org ID). No missing information needed for correct invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (page_size and page_cursor). The description does not add any further meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 tool lists organizations and highlights its critical role as the first call to get the organization ID needed by other tools. It uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'organizations', and distinguishes itself from siblings as the foundational tool for obtaining the org ID.

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 description explicitly instructs to 'Call this FIRST' and explains why (to get the organization id used by nearly every other tool). This provides strong usage context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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