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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the required scopes (ORGS_READ, plus TEAMS_READ for teams) and the fact that team data is expanded into the response. It does not, however, say what happens if the caller lacks TEAMS_READ or if the org id is unknown.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the implementation reference and permission needs. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (organization plus teams) and what authorization is needed. It is only slightly light on error/edge-case behavior and alternative listing tools.

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% for the single orgId parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds only marginal meaning (that the id selects one organization and that teams are included), which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Fetch one organization by id') and adds scope detail ('including its teams'). The singular 'one ... by id' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_organizations, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' (lookup of a known organization) rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no alternative (e.g. list_organizations for browsing) is named. The permission requirements are the only routing-relevant context.

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