search_organizations

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuinely useful context beyond structured fields — the upstream API endpoint, the data source, and the CC-BY-4.0 attribution obligation — but it says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination behavior, rate limits, or result format, which an agent needs for a network-backed search.

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?

Three short segments with no padding: resource identity first, then endpoint, then provenance. The attribution sentence earns its place as a compliance requirement rather than filler.

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 search tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers provenance adequately but leaves the return shape, pagination (limit caps at 50), and result ordering unexplained. It is serviceable but not complete for an agent that must present or page results.

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% and each parameter (q, limit, scale, status, category) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter syntax, defaults, or filter-combination semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 identifies the resource precisely (organizations on the AI safety landscape map), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling searches for events, jobs, funding, etc. The verb 'search' is only implied by the tool name, but the domain is unmistakable and an agent can pick the right sibling without opening schemas.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the other ten search_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The licensing/attribution note is provenance information, not usage guidance.

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