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

The readOnlyHint already marks the operation as read-only. The description adds meaningful operational context beyond that: the required ORGS_READ permission and the underlying GraphQL query viewer.organizations. This helps the agent understand access requirements and data source.

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 compact sentences deliver the operation, scope, return fields, permission, and GraphQL source without any filler. Every sentence earns its place and the core meaning is front-loaded.

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 parameterless read-only list tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the viewer scope, required permission, and the underlying query. No output schema exists, but the listed fields cover what the agent needs to know.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The baseline score of 4 applies because no parameter explanation is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), the exact resource ('organizations the viewer belongs to'), and the returned fields (id, name, tier, billingTier). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_organization_users or get_organization.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when the agent needs the organizations associated with the current viewer. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the viewer-scoped context is unambiguous and sufficient for this zero-parameter read operation.

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