finary_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 'List' and mentions 'authenticated user', which implies a read-only operation but does not state side effects, rate limits, response format, or any required authentication details. The lack of explicit behavioral context is a significant gap.

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, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is perfectly concise and front-loads the core action, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but lacks important context. It does not explain pagination, what an 'organization' entails, or how this relates to sibling tools. For a tool with no annotations, more behavioral and situational details are needed for complete understanding.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is a 4, and the tool meets this baseline as there is nothing to clarify.

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 function: 'List Finary organizations' with the scope 'available to the authenticated user.' The verb 'list' is specific and the resource is clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the name and context make the intent obvious, so it earns a 4.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like finary_portfolio or finary_transactions. An agent is left to infer usage from the name and generic phrasing. There are no exclusions or specific scenarios mentioned, so this dimension is weakly addressed.

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