get_organisation_defaults

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying auth scope, enterprise-gating, and the 403 response on non-Enterprise plans, plus clarifying that per-workspace exclusions are not included. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds useful information beyond them.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, exclusions, auth, and error behavior. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it specifies purpose, usage context, exclusions, access prerequisites, and error behavior. It fully equips an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 per rubric the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details since there are none, and the schema coverage is effectively complete for an empty parameter set.

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 clearly states 'Get the organisation-wide input and output guardrails that workspaces inherit by default' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from related tools like update_organisation_defaults and exclusion list tools. It fully clarifies scope, making it unmistakable what this tool does relative to siblings.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this before update_organisation_defaults or when auditing baseline enforcement' and states what is excluded and where to find it ('directional exclusion list tools'). Also includes required scope and enterprise-gating requirements, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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