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. It states 'Get' implying a read-only operation, and mentions optional expansion of related data. It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is destructive. However, for a simple retrieval, the description is adequate.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds the key usage constraint. Every word is necessary and informative. There is no redundancy or verbosity.

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 the simplicity of the tool (3 optional params, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers how to identify the organization and how to expand data. It does not explain return values or error cases, but those are often implied or covered by the schema. An agent can use this tool correctly.

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% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity constraint ('Provide exactly one...') and listing the expansion options explicitly. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 'Get a single organization' and specifies the unique identifiers (OrganizationKey or UserDefinedIdentifier), differentiating it from sibling tools like list_organizations (list all) and create_organization (create). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains the input constraint ('Provide exactly one of organizationKey or userDefinedIdentifier') and mentions optional expansion. However, it does not directly compare with sibling tools like list_organizations or update_organization, leaving the agent to infer when to use this tool instead. Still, the context is clear enough for most cases.

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