crm_get_organization_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required (only hints via "check admin permissions" in error recovery), or what the return structure looks like. The error recovery note adds a small amount of context, but the description is largely silent on side effects, availability, and output format.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, but it is somewhat verbose for a tool with no parameters. The 'Common Pattern' section largely repeats the 'Next Steps' guidance, and the multi-section format feels padded relative to the tool's simplicity. Still, the structure is organized and scannable, and each section adds some operational value.

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 tool's low complexity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: what the tool returns at a high level, prerequisites, workflow suggestions, and error recovery. It could be more explicit about the response structure or data sensitivity, but for a foundational read-only lookup, it covers the essential context adequately.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly omits any parameter details. It does describe the kind of information returned (configuration, limits, admin info), which is entirely appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 organization details and settings including configuration, limits, and administrative info," which identifies the specific resource and scope. It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning "Use crm_get_organization_features for feature analysis" and "try crm_get_organization_features as alternative," clarifying that this tool focuses on general org context rather than feature-specific data.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: "Prerequisites: None - foundational tool," a concrete next-step sequence ("crm_get_organization_features → crm_get_all_users → crm_get_all_modules"), and an error recovery path with an alternative tool. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and how it fits into a broader workflow.

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