get_organisation_defaults

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing auth requirements ('organisation service API key with organisation_settings.read scope'), a plan gate ('Enterprise-gated'), and a concrete failure mode ('Returns 403 on non-Enterprise Portkey plans'). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then operational constraints — good ordering with no filler. Minor redundancy between 'Enterprise-gated' and 'Returns 403 on non-Enterprise Portkey plans', which restate the same constraint twice.

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?

Covers scope, alternatives, auth scope, plan gating, and error behavior; an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter discussion.

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 ('Get') and resource ('organisation-wide input and output guardrails') with scope ('that workspaces inherit by default'). This clearly distinguishes it from get_guardrail, list_guardrails, and update_organisation_defaults in the sibling list.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('before update_organisation_defaults or when auditing baseline enforcement') and an explicit exclusion with pointer to the alternative ('does not include per-workspace exclusions, which are available from the directional exclusion list tools'). No inference required.

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