list_organizations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does disclose the essential behavior: it is a read-only listing operation that returns organization details, the caller's role, and the number of applications. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but given the zero-parameter, list-only nature, the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences, with the action front-loaded and every phrase carrying information. No filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states the scope and key returned fields. It could be more complete with pagination or ordering details, but those are minor for an operation of this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered. The description adds relevant context about what is returned, and there are no parameter semantics left to clarify.

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'), names the exact resource ('AgeKey organizations'), and scopes it to those the caller has access to. It also previews the returned fields (role, application count), making it easy to distinguish from sibling list_applications.

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 implies this tool is for enumerating organizations visible to the caller, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings such as list_applications or get_application. There is no exclusion guidance or alternative mention, leaving the agent to infer placement from the name.

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