kaiten_get_sd_organization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' signals a read-only operation, but the description adds no detail about response contents, not-found behavior, or required permissions. This is adequate for a simple fetch but thin given the absence of 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 very simple: one required integer parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description plus schema are enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. A little more context about return shape or errors could still help, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100% since organization_id is already described as 'Organization ID'. The description's 'by ID' reinforces the parameter's role but adds no new semantic detail beyond 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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('Service Desk organization'), and a clear lookup scope ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from list/create/update/delete siblings.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is used when an organization_id is already known, and not for listing all organizations. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like list_sd_organizations or states when not to use this tool, so guidance remains only implied.

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