organization_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't address potential authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' entail (e.g., format, depth). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, potential return formats, error handling, or prerequisites. For a tool that retrieves organizational data, this lacks necessary context for effective use.

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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'id' parameter is used to specify which organization to retrieve details for, adding semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify the format or constraints of the 'id' (e.g., numeric, string pattern), leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'organization_list' or 'status_show' that might also retrieve organizational information, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'organization_list' (likely listing multiple organizations) and 'status_show' (possibly showing status rather than details), there's no indication of when this specific retrieval is appropriate, leaving usage unclear.

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