List Organizations

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the returned fields (device count, limit, parent org, trial end time) and warning about the unreliable tier slug. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 consists of two concise sentences that convey purpose, return fields, and a usage warning. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers return fields and usage context. However, it omits critical details about pagination via page/limit and the effect of output_format. This leaves gaps for a list tool that likely returns paginated results.

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 3 parameters (page, limit, output_format) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention these parameters at all, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from the schema alone, which lacks descriptions. This fails to compensate for the missing schema details.

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 explicitly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'organizations visible to the API key', and it lists specific fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_devices or list_users, which target different resources.

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 provides direct usage context: 'Useful for MSP/multi-org navigation, capacity posture, and trial warnings.' It also warns against misinterpreting the tier field. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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