organizations-get-organizations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly notes 'read-only', which indicates no side effects. However, it does not disclose authorization requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if the organizationId is invalid), or the default response format beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise (one sentence and a parenthetical). It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include more context without becoming verbose.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the core function but lacks guidance on using the 'fields' parameter or clarifying the return structure. Additional context would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already defines their meaning. The description does not add any additional semantics or usage details beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Return') and resource ('an organization'), with the parenthetical '(read-only)' reinforcing its nature. Among sibling tools like 'organizations-list-organizations' or 'organizations-get-devices', this tool is distinct in that it retrieves a single organization by ID.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool requires an organization ID and is for fetching a specific organization, while 'organizations-list-organizations' is for listing all organizations. No exclusions or context are given.

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