organizations__get_organizations

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It discloses throttling limits ('не чаще 1 запрос(ов) за 10 с') and recommends caching ('кэшируйте результат в диалоге'). This is useful operational guidance that the annotations do not cover. However, it does not describe return format, error handling, or other behaviors, but given the annotations cover safety, this is adequate.

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 moderately sized but somewhat disorganized. It includes an 'Args' section, a 'Returns' section, and a note about throttling. The 'Where to get ID' phrase is ambiguous and could be clearer. While not overly verbose, the structure mixes Russian and English and lacks a clear, front-loaded statement. It is acceptable but not polished.

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 straightforward (listing organizations), and the description covers the core purpose, throttling, and a hint about IDs. However, it does not mention that by default it returns all organizations (though the schema implies this via null organizationIds), nor does it address pagination, error cases, or output structure. Given the lack of an output schema, some additional context about expected response would improve completeness. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 description only mentions the 'request' parameter and notes its default empty state. The input schema itself provides detailed descriptions for all sub-fields (includeDisabled, organizationIds, returnExternalData, returnAdditionalInfo) in English, so the schema covers parameter semantics well. The description adds minimal value beyond stating the default, which is already in the schema. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Получить список организаций' (Get list of organizations). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name is unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the purpose is distinct and the description includes a hint about obtaining organization IDs, which clarifies its role. However, it doesn't name alternatives, so it's not a 5.

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 minimal usage guidance. It implies that the tool is used to get organization IDs ('organizationIds → organizations__get_organizations') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It also advises caching due to throttling, which is more behavioral than usage direction. No clear conditions or exclusions are provided.

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