list_organization_memberships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation and implicitly requires authentication, but it does not disclose details such as pagination behavior, result ordering, or any permissions beyond authentication.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and resource. No filler or redundant 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 straightforward list operation with optional filters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's core purpose. It could be enhanced by indicating the return shape, but the absence of that is not a significant gap given the simplicity.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not add semantic details. It does not, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains each parameter's purpose.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('organization memberships') clearly scoped to the authenticated user. It differentiates well from sibling tools targeting events, auth tokens, and user profile data.

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 phrase 'for the authenticated user' establishes clear context, indicating this tool is appropriate for retrieving the current user's memberships. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but no competing membership tools exist among siblings.

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