get_organization_spending_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data scope. The tool lists parameters but lacks transparency on what happens during invocation.

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 very concise, using a single summary line and a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter list is clear.

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?

The description explains all parameters and the basic purpose. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior, sorting, or potential error conditions. Overall, adequate for a tool with output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains that organization_id is a public org id format 'org_...', search_term is a name/email filter, page is 1-indexed, and page_size is optional. This goes well beyond the schema's type-only information.

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 org spend' and includes the HTTP method and endpoint, which specifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_spending_data' by including 'org' in the name and description.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_spending_data' or 'get_organization_daily_usage_data'. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are given.

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