Org entitlements

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose what is returned, whether permissions are needed, or any side effects. While it does not contradict the annotations, it adds no value beyond them.

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, compact sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the key concept, though the brevity does border on under-specification. Still, as far as conciseness goes, it is appropriately small.

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 simple one-parameter tool, no output schema, and sparse description, the agent is left without context about return values or what constitutes an 'entitlement' or 'limit'. The description is too minimal to fully guide correct invocation and interpretation.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly describe the 'org_id' parameter. The phrase 'for an org' weakly implies the parameter identifies an organization, but this is insufficient compensation for the complete lack of parameter documentation in both the schema and description.

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 'Plan entitlements / limits for an org.' identifies the resource (entitlements/limits) and scope (an org), but the verb 'Plan' is ambiguous—it could mean retrieving or configuring. It does not clearly state an action like 'get' or 'list', making it less distinguishable from siblings such as org_usage.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like org_usage or org_get. There are no stated exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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