List Organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, making the safe read-only behavior clear. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned (tier, device count, etc.), but does not mention pagination behavior or that it lists all organizations visible to the API key.

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 two sentences: the first states what the tool does and lists return fields, the second enumerates use cases. It is efficient, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with no required parameters and has an output schema. The description explains the returned fields and suggests use cases, but lacks parameter documentation. It is mostly complete but could mention that it returns all organizations visible to the API key and describe pagination behavior.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its 3 parameters (page, limit, output_format). The description does not explain these parameters or their usage, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 name 'list_organizations' and title clearly indicate the verb and resource. The description lists specific fields returned (tier, device count, device limit, parent org, trial end time), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_users or list_zones.

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 description explicitly states use cases: 'MSP/multi-org navigation, feature-tier checks, capacity posture, and trial warnings.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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