datto_edr_organizations_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior: the endpoint is resolved dynamically from the instance's swagger.json and failure surfaces related models. It stops short of describing pagination or return shape.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the operational fallback follows immediately after, in the order an agent would need it.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally state what comes back (a list of organization objects plus nextSkip for pagination). It covers the discovery/failure path well and the schema covers all five parameters, but the return shape is left implicit.

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%, with skip/limit/order/where/fields all documented including LoopBack operators and the nextSkip convention. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Datto EDR organizations') and clarifies the resource with '(tenants/customers)', which disambiguates the domain term. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling datto_edr_organizations_get, but the list/get naming makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Gives clear context for use and an explicit fallback path: if the endpoint is absent from /explorer/swagger.json, the error points to related models queryable via datto_edr_raw_request. It does not state exclusions (e.g., when to prefer organizations_get for a single tenant), so it falls short of a 5.

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