get_organization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a read operation (implying non-destructive), but the description doesn't state this explicitly, nor does it mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist (error 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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than concise; one sentence is appropriate for a simple get-by-id operation, which earns it a 4.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter get-by-ID tool with a clear schema and 100% coverage. The description is adequate for this complexity level. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could note what fields to expect in the response or behavioral characteristics. For a simple tool, this is reasonably complete but not exceptional.

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 single 'id' parameter is documented as 'The organization ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it says 'by ID' which reinforces what the schema already states about the id parameter.

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 verb (Get), resource (organization), scope (specific by ID), and data source (IT Glue). It distinguishes from siblings like search_organizations (which searches instead of getting by ID) and search_configurations. Clear purpose but doesn't explicitly note the distinction from the search sibling, so not a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus search_organizations or other alternatives. The description implies usage (when you have a specific organization ID) but doesn't state exclusions or alternatives. Given the sibling list includes search_organizations, explicit differentiation would help.

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