get-organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description merely restates 'get' without adding any behavioral details beyond annotations, such as potential error conditions or response structure.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and could include more information without becoming verbose. It is minimally acceptable but not exemplary.

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 multiple sibling tools, the description should specify what is returned (e.g., full organization object) and how it differs from get-organizations. Currently, it omits these details, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to clarify the meaning of organizationId beyond the schema's exclusiveMinimum:0. It does not mention that the ID must correspond to an existing organization or explain what happens for invalid IDs.

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 action ('Get'), resource ('Pipedrive organization'), and method ('by ID'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get-organizations (plural listing) and search-organizations (search) by specifying retrieval of a single organization via its ID.

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 such as get-organizations for listing all organizations or search-organizations for filtering. There is no mention of prerequisites or context like requiring an existing organization ID.

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