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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that results are scoped to the token's permissions, but says nothing about pagination behavior (page/limit exist) or result volume, which matters for a listing tool.

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: purpose first, then the action-guiding hint, plus a compact endpoint reference. Nothing is redundant or wasted.

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 simple, annotation-covered, zero-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, placement in the workflow, and the underlying endpoint. It could note result shape or that pagination is available, but nothing critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both page and limit fully documented in the schema (1-based page, size 1-100). The description adds no parameter 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) with a scoping qualifier ('the token can act for'), and clarifies its role as the root entry point relative to the many sibling list/get tools. An agent can immediately tell it apart from polar_list_customers, polar_list_products, etc.

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' gives clear sequencing guidance that no sibling provides. It lacks an explicit when-not clause, but the prerequisite relationship is stated concretely enough to route the agent correctly.

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