list_organizations

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operationcars, and it discloses output characteristics (employee-size band, counts, DNC marking). However, it doesn't explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or potential performance implications, but for a simple list it's adequate.

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?

One concise sentence that's front-loaded with the action and resource, immediately followed by key output details. No fluff, easily scannable.

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 simple list tool, the description captures the essential return values. It doesn't mention pagination exactly but the schema covers defaults. It doesn't discuss edge cases like empty results or performance, but overall it's adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 description doesn't explain the query parameter q's behavior beyond schema's 'substring' hint. It adds no context for limit/offset, which are self-explanatory. Since schema coverage is only 33%, the description should compensate but doesn't. The user isn't guided on how to filter or paginate effectively.

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 states the exact action ('List') and resource ('organizations'), plus what's included (employee-size band, counts, DNC marking). It clearly distinguishes from other list tools (e.g., list_projects) and conveys the scope (tenant-level).

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 implies when to use (when you need an overview of organizations with counts and DNC status) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions. It's clear enough for an agent to pick this for listing orgs, but doesn't mention not to use it for filtered prospect searches, for example.

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