check_org

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It conveys the source ('from lastseen.dev'), scope, and non-advisory nature ('Lookup, not advice'), but does not mention read-only behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. This is adequate for a simple lookup but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no filler. Key scoping information is front-loaded, and every clause adds value: the resource, the source, the scope, and the lookup/advice distinction.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool, the description plus full schema coverage is sufficient for correct invocation. It identifies the input, source, and scope. The lack of an output schema means return values are not detailed, but the description does not need to explain them per rubric. Minor missing context includes possible error conditions or assumptions about org-slug validity.

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%, so the single required parameter 'name' is already fully documented as a GitHub owner/org slug. The description adds only organizational scope ('Org-level only') and does not provide additional parameter semantics, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 resource ('Dated survival states across the components referenced under an ORG') and a clear action ('Lookup'). It also scopes the tool with 'Org-level only', which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like check_entity and check_manifest, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

'Org-level only' gives clear context about when this tool applies, and 'Lookup, not advice' provides an exclusion that prevents misuse. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as check_entity or survival_profile, leaving some routing to inference.

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