list_organizations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the result is the canonical list of accessible orgs, describes filtering behavior, and mentions optional override parameters. It does not detail rate limits or auth failure behavior, but is adequately transparent for a list endpoint.

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 relatively concise at three sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It could be slightly more structured but overall 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete. It does not specify the return format (e.g., list of org GUIDs and names) or pagination behavior. It covers essential user guidance but lacks some detail expected for a discovery tool.

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 67% (two parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds meaning for search_text by specifying it filters by display name and that an empty string returns the full list, going beyond what the schema provides. The other parameters are already well-described 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 returns the organizations the current API key can target, explicitly noting it's the canonical list and advising to use it first to discover org GUIDs. It also addresses the potentially confusing path name.

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 explicitly says 'Use this FIRST to discover org GUIDs to pass as organization_id to other tools' and explains the search_text parameter usage. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or enumerate alternatives.

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