scf_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 indicates a read-only operation ('Get... detail') with no destructive side effects. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but could be enhanced.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and clearly conveys the tool's purpose and key details. There is no wasted text.

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?

The description lists the specific types of data returned (subscription tier, member count, usage limits, settings), providing sufficient context for the agent to understand the output. Without an output schema, this enumeration is helpful and reasonably complete for a single-org detail tool.

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 provides 100% coverage, including a clear description for org_id (UUID format and how to obtain it). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 3.

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 action (Get), resource (one organization), and enumerates specific fields returned (subscription tier, member count, usage limits, settings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scf_list_organizations, which likely lists all organizations with less detail.

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 usage context (retrieving detailed info about a specific organization) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like scf_list_organizations or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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