get_organization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not mention limitations, error behavior, authentication, or the distinction between basic data and richer endpoints. The example format for the id (including the 'nip' prefix) is a helpful behavioral clue beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with an inline example. Every word earns its place: it states the action, resource, identifier formats, and examples without any fluff or repetition.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The id format is explained clearly, and 'basic data' signals the scope. Minor gap: it does not mention any preconditions or alternatives, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 schema provides only a bare string parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that 'id' accepts either a KRS number or a NIP, with illustrative examples ('12345' or 'nip1234567890'). This gives an agent the exact format needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('basic data for an organization'), and identifies the key identifiers (KRS number or NIP). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like search_organizations (search vs get) and get_organization_krs_extract (basic vs extract), though it does not explicitly name them.

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 implies usage when you have a KRS number or NIP and need basic organization data, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, such as using search_organizations when an identifier is unavailable.

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