search_organizations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search for organizations,' omitting key behavioral traits like returning a paginated list, supporting sorting, or being read-only. No mention of what the response contains, rate limits, or other side effects. This is almost a tautology of the tool name.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb 'Search.' It is appropriately sized for a simple purpose but lacks additional structure or detail.

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 should explain return values, pagination, or typical usage context. It only states the search action and optional filtering, leaving out crucial details for a tool with multiple filters and pagination parameters. The description is insufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter described (e.g., 'Filter by organization name (partial match)'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the generic 'optional filtering,' so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not compensate or contradict 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 searches for organizations in IT Glue, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_configurations or search_passwords by naming the resource explicitly. However, it lacks specific scope details such as 'with optional filtering by name or ID' that would make it fully unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_organization or other search tools. The phrase 'with optional filtering' implies usage for lookup but does not state exclusions or alternate tools. Since sibling tools are available, the description should have noted when to use search versus direct retrieval.

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