list_organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and open-world aspects. The description adds nothing beyond that – it does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, or any potential side effects. Since it provides no additional behavioral context, it scores low despite the annotations lowering the bar.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it easy to scan. It contains no filler or repeated information, so it is highly efficient.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and read-only annotations, the description is minimal but functional. However, it does not clarify pagination behavior or the scope of results (e.g., whether all organizations are returned or only those accessible to the user). It also lacks any mention of alternatives, which is a gap. Given the existing schema and annotations, it is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the page and per_page parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not mention them, but the schema carries the burden. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description adds no extra meaning, yet the schema covers all parameter semantics.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('organizations') with scope ('in Zendesk'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_organization (which retrieves a single entity) and create/update/delete_organization (which mutate data). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_organization or search. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or preferred contexts. An agent has to infer usage from the name and schema, which is insufficient.

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