crm_get_organization_features

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: mentions admin permissions for access issues and API rate limits as part of the returned data, implying a read-only operation. It doesn't explicitly state the response format or side effects, but for a get with no parameters, it covers key operational aspects.

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 structured with bolded sections (Prerequisites, Next Steps, Common Pattern, Error Recovery) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is slightly verbose but each section provides unique workflow context, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 empty schema, no output schema, and zero params, the description is comprehensive: it states what to run before, what to do after, the common pattern, and error recovery. It fully equips an agent to integrate this tool into a broader workflow, so a 5 is warranted.

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 there is no parameter semantics to elaborate. Per rubric, zero parameters yields a baseline score of 4. The description correctly omits parameter details.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving organization features and limits, specifically listing API limits, storage, user counts, and enabled features. It distinguishes from the sibling crm_get_organization_details by focusing on features/limits, making the purpose 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 provides a prerequisite (use crm_get_organization_details first) and suggests next steps (crm_get_all_users, crm_get_all_modules) with a common pattern. It also includes error recovery guidance, giving clear contextual usage and alternatives.

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