get_current_organization_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating the token-based origin of the data and the precedence behavior. For a simple read-only, zero-parameter tool, this is adequate, though return shape is not detailed.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and adds the key precedence detail without extraneous text. 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?

This is a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description gives enough context for an agent to select it correctly, including the token-based nature and precedence rule. It could list specific returned fields, but the current level is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about organization ID precedence even though no parameters are present, which is valuable for understanding why no org parameter is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('information about the current user and organization based on the token'). It also distinguishes this from siblings like get_current_user and get_user_organizations by emphasizing token-derived context and precedence when no organization ID is specified.

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 context is clear: this tool is appropriate for retrieving token-scoped current user/organization info. The precedence statement ('this result will take precedence') provides a usage condition, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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