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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile. The description does add one genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations — results are limited to organisations the current token is authorized for — plus the upstream endpoint. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape, so the addition is modest.

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 the 'start here' directive, then the endpoint reference. Nothing is redundant.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and its role as the entry point for the toolset. Pagination semantics are left to the schema, which is acceptable since limit is capped at 100 there.

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%, with 'page' and 'limit' fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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 (list) and resource (organisations) and adds a meaningful scope qualifier: 'the organisations the token can act for'. This distinguishes it from the many polar_list_* siblings that operate within a single organisation.

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?

'Start here — most other tools take an organization_id' is explicit, actionable guidance that tells the agent to call this first to obtain the ID other tools require. It doesn't state a when-not condition or name a specific alternative, but the routing intent is unambiguous.

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