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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the REST endpoint mapping (GET /api/v2/organizations/{id}), which is useful orientation but not behavioral detail such as not-found/error handling or response shape.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted wording. The REST endpoint line is optional but compact and informative.

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 whose read-only safety is covered by annotations and whose parameter is fully documented, the description is essentially complete. No output schema exists, but return-value explanation is not required.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented in the schema as required. The description's 'by its id' adds no format or type detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get a single organization') and scopes it to retrieval by id, which distinguishes it from the list/search siblings. It does not name the alternatives explicitly, but the 'single...by its id' phrasing makes the retrieval semantics unambiguous.

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 its id' - an agent can infer this is the point-lookup versus list/search - but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance naming siblings like pipedrive_list_organizations or pipedrive_search_organizations.

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