get_organization_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is stated about required permissions, whether the zoid must reference a child versus parent organization, what happens if the org doesn't exist, or what fields 'details' covers. The minimal description adds little beyond the verb itself.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Every word earns its place; the description is optimally sized for the simple scope it conveys.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present), so the minimal description is close to adequate. However, the undefined 'zoid' parameter and lack of sibling differentiation leave real gaps. The output schema covers return values, but an agent still lacks enough context to know what identifier to pass or when this tool is the right choice.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'zoid' parameter, but it does not explain what zoid is or how to obtain it. The phrase 'child organization' hints that zoid refers to a child org identifier, but this is indirect and unstated. An agent receives no concrete guidance on the parameter's format or meaning.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of a child organization.' The inclusion of 'child' adds scoping that distinguishes it from the parent-level organization. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like get_organization_subscription_details, leaving some ambiguity among the many get_*_details tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when a child organization exists, or how this differs from get_organization_subscription_details or get_all_accounts. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and one-line description.

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