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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by naming the backing GraphQL query and specifying the ORGS_READ and TEAMS_READ permission requirements. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent anticipate access failure modes.

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 two short sentences: the first states the core action and result scope, the second adds endpoint and permission context. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a simple, single-parameter read operation, the description covers the key facts: what is fetched, that teams are included, the endpoint, and permissions. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough about the return scope to guide the agent.

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 100%, with orgId already documented as 'The organization id.' The description's 'by id' adds no new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one organization by id'), and clearly distinguishes from list_organizations by emphasizing a single organization. Including 'its teams' further clarifies the scope of the result.

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 phrase 'by id' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when the agent has a specific organization id. It does not name sibling alternatives like list_organizations, but the singular-by-id framing implies the correct selection criterion.

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