Organisation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by naming the concrete payload fields (organisation identity, default language, sending limit), which is exactly what an agent needs to know before calling a zero-parameter read; it stops short of noting error behavior for an invalid key.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary result and then the secondary fields, with zero filler. Nothing here could be removed without losing content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it lists the three main pieces of information returned. It does not describe the full response shape (ids, plan details, limits structure), leaving a small gap for an agent that needs to parse the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is a 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It also implicitly confirms the call is key-scoped rather than taking an organisation identifier.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns the organisation tied to the API key plus default language and sending limit. That cleanly distinguishes it from the document/send siblings, which none of them overlap with, though the phrasing 'Shows which PenlyDoc organisation the API key belongs to' is slightly indirect compared with a direct 'Returns the current organisation'.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a context/configuration lookup rather than a document operation, and no sibling is a plausible substitute. But there is no explicit 'use this when you need account identity, plan or limit info' guidance or mention of when it is unnecessary.

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