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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden of behavioral detail. It explains account-wide behavior, restricted-token visibility, the plan-limit distinction, and the complete set of possible `status` values with their meanings, going well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is long but dense and front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, followed by consequential edge cases and status meanings. Every sentence earns its place by carrying operationally important guidance rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return semantics, and it does: it names the `organisations` and `status` fields, explains `withinPlanLimit: false`, and enumerates all status values and their fixes. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect and how to react to every outcome.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds relevant context by explicitly stating the tool takes no `organisation` argument and is account-wide, which clarifies why parameter-free invocation is correct.

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: 'List the Xero organisations this connector token is currently authorised to read AND that this call is permitted to know about.' It clarifies it returns names only, never internal IDs, and is account-wide, which distinguishes it from the many list_xero_* siblings that target other resources.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to find the exact organisation name to pass as `organisation` on another tool when the connection reaches more than one organisation. It also gives operational when-not-to guidance by explaining that organisations with `withinPlanLimit: false` will be refused and should be described plainly rather than attempted.

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