scf_get_organization

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds value beyond the annotation by stating what data the response contains (subscription tier, member count, usage limits, settings), which helps an agent predict the tool's output.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target resource, and the key return fields with no filler. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, the required input source, and the expected detail categories. There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the major output areas, though it does not detail error behavior or authorization requirements.

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%, and the org_id property description already explains the UUID and how to obtain it from scf_list_organizations. The main description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one organization's detail') and then enumerates the exact data categories returned: subscription tier, member count, usage limits, and settings. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list operations like scf_list_organizations.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single organization's details rather than listing organizations. The parameter description adds workflow guidance by stating the org_id should be obtained from scf_list_organizations, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases.

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