search_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 of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with no filters (returns all organizations?), whether results are paginated beyond what the schema implies, or what the response structure looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, more disclosure is needed.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. It's not wasteful. However, given the complexity (7 parameters, pagination, search semantics), it's slightly under-specified — a 5 would require a bit more useful context packed into that space.

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?

For a search tool with 7 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is notably thin. It doesn't explain default behavior (e.g., what happens when no filters are applied — does it return all organizations?), pagination semantics, whether search is case-insensitive, or how results are ordered by default. Sibling tools like search_locations and search_configurations exist, and no differentiation or cross-reference is provided. Given the tool's moderate complexity and zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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%, so all 7 parameters are already documented in the schema with meaningful descriptions (name partial match, sort prefix convention, page_size max, etc.). The description adds 'optional filtering' as a general context cue but nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't contradict or extend it meaningfully.

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 states 'Search for organizations in IT Glue with optional filtering' — a clear verb (search) plus resource (organizations) plus scope (IT Glue). It distinguishes naturally from siblings like search_configurations, search_locations, and search_passwords by naming the specific resource type. It's not quite a 5 because it doesn't clarify the return format or result set nature beyond searching.

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 get_organization (which retrieves a single organization) or search_configurations. There's no mention of when searching is preferred over direct retrieval, no pagination caveats, and no exclusions. The 'with optional filtering' hint implies search-all behavior but doesn't explicitly explain tradeoffs against sibling tools.

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