Swagger: List Organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: scoping to authenticating user's organizations, admin gets all, and pagination via parameters. This adds value beyond annotations.

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 two concise paragraphs: first explaining behavior, second listing parameters. It is well-structured and front-loaded. The parameter list is a bit redundant with the schema but not overly verbose.

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 tool's simplicity (list operation with optional pagination), good annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: who sees what, and pagination details. It covers the essential aspects.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists parameters with their descriptions, but these are identical to the schema descriptions. No additional semantics are provided beyond what is already in the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get organizations for a user.' It specifies that it returns organizations the authenticating user is a member of, and for on-premise admin, all organizations. This distinguishes it from any potential sibling tools (none list organizations).

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 explicit usage guidelines are provided, but given no sibling alternatives for listing organizations, the tool's purpose is self-evident. It could be improved by mentioning when to use it versus other organization-related tools, but none exist in the sibling list.

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