list_organizations

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions pagination via start and limit, indicating list behavior, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose any authentication or rate-limit considerations.

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, with a clear opening line stating the main function, followed by a brief supplementary explanation and then a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 low complexity (3 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary user-facing aspects. However, it omits mention of default sorting or ordering, which could be useful but is not critical.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains each parameter's purpose: service_desk_id as optional filter, start as pagination offset, and limit as max results with default. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 the tool lists organizations with optional scoping to a service desk. It effectively differentiates from siblings like create_organization and delete_organization by specifying the read/list action.

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 explains the optional service_desk_id parameter for scoping, giving context on when to use it. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like get_organization for a single entity.

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