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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing the returned fields and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about auth requirements or behavior when the id does not exist.

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 fragments with zero filler; the resource identity and return shape are front-loaded before the endpoint detail. Nothing can be cut without losing information.

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-entity read with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the field enumeration gives the agent enough to know what comes back. Only the error/not-found path is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Zammad organization id.' The description reinforces this with 'by id' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema's integer/minimum bounds. 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 ('One organization by id') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It distinguishes itself from the list/search siblings only implicitly via 'by id' rather than naming them, which keeps it short of a 5.

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: fetch a single organization when you already have its id, as opposed to zammad_list_organizations or zammad_search_organizations. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the alternatives are never named.

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