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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description adds real value beyond them: the required ORGS_READ permission and the returned fields (id, name, tier, billingTier). No pagination or ordering behavior is disclosed, but for a viewer-scoped org list that is minor.

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?

Three compact, front-loaded fragments with no filler — scope first, then return shape, then the GraphQL path and permission. The GraphQL path is implementation detail but useful routing for the parabol_query sibling, so it earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, listing the returned fields is the right compensating move, and the auth requirement is stated. For a zero-parameter read list, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify and nothing misleading about it.

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 (List) and resource (organizations) with an explicit scope ('the viewer belongs to') and enumerates returned fields. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular get_organization sibling via that scope, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 the scope ('the organizations the viewer belongs to') and the auth gate, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to get_organization, get_viewer, or list_organization_users.

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