org_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the meaningful scope constraint that results are limited to organizations visible to the API key, plus the shape of each returned record, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or error behavior.

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 lines, front-loaded with the read marker, scope, and returns before the argument block. Nothing is padded; every clause carries 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields. Combined with annotations covering read-only safety for this zero-required-parameter tool, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; the only gap is the unstated relationship to org_get.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter. It does explain that 'target' is a Target name from config and that omitting it uses the default, which is more than the bare schema with default null provides. It does not clarify valid target values or where the config lives.

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+resource (list organizations) plus the scoping condition (visible to the API key) and the summary fields returned (id, name, url, apiEnabled). It implicitly separates itself from the single-object sibling org_get by enumerating list-level fields, but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is not explicit.

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?

"[READ]" and "visible to the API key" give implied context for when this tool applies, and "omit for the default" guides the optional argument. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as org_get for a single organization.

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