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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world behaviour, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioural context not present in structured fields: a quota ('free within the daily allowance') and a per-call price once exceeded, which materially affects an agent's willingness to call repeatedly. It stops short of noting behaviour on unknown or deprecated ROR ids.

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, no filler, and the substantive content (what is returned) is front-loaded before the pricing note. Nothing could be trimmed 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?

With an output schema present, the return shape need not be described, and the cost model is supplied. What is missing is routing guidance against the closely related ror__organisation tool, which is the main decision an agent faces for a one-parameter lookup.

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 is a single required parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself giving a concrete format example (052gg0110 or the full URL). The description adds no further meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific resource and the exact relationship set returned ('Parent, child and related organisations of a ROR record'), which is more informative than the title alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with ror__organisation or ror__search, so an agent must infer that those return the record itself rather than its graph neighbourhood.

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?

There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over ror__organisation or ror__search, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only guidance offered is commercial (free tier then per-call price), which tells the agent nothing about selection.

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