list_organizations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List all' (implying a read operation) but omits details like authentication requirements, potential size of the list, or whether results are paginated. This is insufficient for an agent to infer safe/expected behavior.

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 at two sentences (20 words). The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds a critical usage hint. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

As a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and a usage hint. However, it does not describe the output format or what fields are returned, leaving the agent to infer. Given the low complexity, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information because there are none, which is acceptable. No extra meaning is needed 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 tool lists 'all beacon organizations (tenants)' available via the configured API. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('organizations') and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on organization discovery rather than queries or configurations.

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 explicitly advises calling this tool first when the organization is unknown: 'Call this first if you don't know which org to query.' This provides clear guidance on when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives.

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