list-organisation-details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether it requires authentication, rate limits, what specific details are returned (e.g., name, address, settings), or if it's scoped to the current authenticated organisation. The description is minimal and misses key operational context for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 perfectly concise: two short sentences that directly state what the tool does and its primary use case. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose followed by usage context, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks depth: no output format details, no authentication requirements, and no behavioral nuances. For a read-only list tool in a financial system, more context about what 'organisation details' includes would be helpful, but the absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Since there are no parameters to document, the description's focus on the tool's purpose is sufficient, earning a baseline 4 for not introducing unnecessary parameter information.

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 purpose: 'Lists the organisation details from Xero' specifies the verb (list) and resource (organisation details). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on organisation-level information rather than transactional data like invoices or contacts. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools that might also provide organisational context.

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 basic context: 'Use this tool to get information about the current Xero organisation' implies usage when organisation-level metadata is needed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over other list tools (e.g., list-accounts or list-contacts) or when organisation details are specifically required versus general system information. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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