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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the exact API path, org:read scope, rate-limit/billing alignment, and a warning not to invent other paths.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence contributes information: resource, scope, OpenAPI mapping, and API constraints. There is no redundant or filler content.

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-parameter read-only operation, it covers the endpoint, scope, and rate-limit constraints, which is sufficient for selection and invocation. It does not enumerate the specific settings fields returned, but those are not required to call the tool correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. Per baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is appropriately handled.

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 opens with 'Get organization details' and clarifies it 'Returns the current organization's settings,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also maps to GET /manage-org, which distinguishes it from sibling getters like getApp and getPass.

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?

The intended use is implied by the resource name and description, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives. The 'Do not invent other paths' caution is a constraint, not a routing decision.

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