organizations__get_organization_settings

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds specific behavioral guidance about MCP-server throttling (1 request per 10 seconds) and recommends caching results, which is valuable operational context beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict 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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a clear structure (Args, Returns, notes) and contains no fluff. The inclusion of throttling and caching advice is useful without excessive length.

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 has a complex request object and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It only vaguely states 'Response with organization settings' and does not describe the response structure, available filters, or the meaning of settings parameters. The lack of detail on what can be requested and what is returned makes the tool hard to use correctly without external knowledge.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It only mentions the 'request' parameter generically and does not explain its internal structure (organizationIds, includeDisabled, parameters, returnExternalData). The schema itself has descriptions for each field, but the tool description adds no meaningful detail, leaving the agent to rely solely on 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 states 'Get organization settings' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It also points to organizations__get_organizations for obtaining organization IDs, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools that retrieve organization lists. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other tools or mention what it does not do, so it lacks full differentiation.

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 gives a usage hint by noting where to get organization IDs (organizations__get_organizations) and advises caching due to throttling. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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