Organization Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations, such as permissions, error behavior, or side effects, but it does list returned fields, which is some useful context. No contradiction exists.

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 entire definition is a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the core operation and then lists returned fields. There is no filler or redundant repetition, making it appropriately sized for a simple get tool.

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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter and full annotation coverage, the description is largely complete because it enumerates the returned fields, partially compensating for the absence of an output schema. It could still state that it returns a single organization object by ID, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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 100%: the only parameter organizationId is fully documented in the schema, including a pointer to organization_list. The description adds no additional meaning or syntax for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('an organization'), and enumerates the specific fields returned, including AI prompts. It implicitly differentiates from organization_list through the singular article and the required organizationId parameter, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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 states what the tool returns but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The schema parameter mentions organization_list for finding the ID, but that guidance is not in the description itself, so the description provides no usage context beyond the bare operation.

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