edubase_get_user_organizations

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the membership scope—no pagination, no handling of missing users, no permission requirements—but it does not contradict the annotations. Given the annotation coverage, a mid score is appropriate.

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?

One short sentence delivers the whole semantic payload with no filler, and the most important words ('List', 'organizations', 'user', 'member') come first.

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?

The tool is low complexity and has an output schema, so the description does not need to describe return values. Together with a one-parameter schema, the definition is mostly sufficient to call the tool given a known user identifier. It is only lacking a small amount of situational guidance about user-identification formats or alternatives, which is captured in the other dimensions.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for `user` as a 'user identification string', and the description clarifies that this parameter is the user whose memberships are listed. No format, whether it must be an internal ID or email, or whether it can represent the current user, is specified, so the description adds only minimal meaning over the schema.

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 is a single clause with a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('organizations'), and a scoping qualifier ('a user is member of') that clearly distinguishes membership lookup from system-wide organization listing or group/class lookups. This is sufficient to pick it over siblings like edubase_get_organizations or edubase_get_organization_members.

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 does not state any explicit condition for use, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for the current user use get_user_me' or 'for all organizations use get_organizations'). The intended use is only implicit in the tool's operation, so an agent gets no explicit help choosing among related organization/user endpoints.

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