List tracked organizations

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a non-mutating read, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds useful domain context (workspace-scoped visibility, breadth of tracked organization types) but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens when the filter matches nothing.

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?

Two short sentences, no repetition, with the scoping constraint front-loaded and the relational context second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description supplies what the structure does not: what a 'tracked organization' is and how it relates to entities. A minor gap is the absence of any hint about pagination defaults or result shape, though pageSize/cursor docs partly cover this.

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 all four parameters (type, cursor, search, pageSize) are already documented in the schema with an enum and bounds. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter interaction, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tracked organizations'), enumerates the entity categories covered, and scopes it to what 'the workspace can access'. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the second sentence clarifies the relationship to find_entities, making the role of this tool easy to place.

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 note that 'each entity returned by find_entities belongs to one of these organizations' implies the intended use (resolving an entity's parent organization, or discovering available orgs before filtering). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternative tools such as get_workspace_info, so guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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