organizations-list-search

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

The description includes the behavioral trait '(read-only)', which is helpful given no annotations are provided. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, error handling, or what happens when a client is not found.

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 with one sentence and a parenthetical, front-loading the purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no fluff.

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 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It misses important context about pagination, filtering, and return values, making it incomplete for complex usage.

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 all parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The description itself does not explain parameter roles or provide context.

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 it returns client details in an organization and marks it as read-only. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'networks-list-clients' or 'devices-list-clients', which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The required parameters (organizationId and mac) imply a lookup by MAC, but this is not explicitly stated, and no comparisons to similar tools are made.

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