scf_org_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description carries a lower burden. What remains undisclosed is genuinely useful context the description could have supplied: that most methods require an org_id obtained elsewhere, that audit_log is append-only and filter-heavy, that change_cursor is a cheap polling probe to run before re-pulling the log, and the viewer-role requirements — all of which appear only in the schema's method enum, not the description.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the enumeration of methods is the right way to signal scope in minimal space. It is not padded, though 'Pick with method' is filler that could have been spent on real selection guidance.

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 16-parameter, seven-method multiplexer with no output schema, the definition is only adequate: the schema does the heavy lifting on parameter applicability and per-method return content, and readOnlyHint covers safety. An agent can invoke it correctly, but the description itself gives no picture of what to expect back from each method or how to sequence calls.

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 every parameter is annotated with its purpose and which method consumes it ('Used by: audit_log', etc.), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes essentially nothing beyond naming 'method' as the selector, adding no format, default, or interaction detail over what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read organization data') and then enumerates the seven resource views covered (list, one org, settings, members, audit log, change cursor, work queue), which lets an agent tell this apart from read siblings like scf_user_read or scf_evidence_read. It stops short of naming any sibling or stating the boundary against scf_update_org_settings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Pick with method' only tells the agent that the method enum is the selector; it gives no guidance on which method to choose for a given intent, no ordering advice (the 'list first to get org_id' pattern lives only in the schema), and no when-not or alternative-sibling routing. The agent must open the schema to learn anything actionable about selection.

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