get_org_affected_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that both filters are optional and that event_arn narrows to a single event. It says nothing about pagination, result size, permissions, or rate limits, which is a meaningful gap for an org-wide aggregation tool.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block and two short examples. No sentence is wasted, though the example prompts add modest value beyond the purpose line.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both optional parameters are semantically described. The main remaining gap is the absence of any note on pagination or behavior when neither filter is supplied, but the definition is otherwise adequate for a two-optional-param read tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document both parameters: account_id as an optional event filter and event_arn as an optional single-event selector. There is a slight mismatch in that event_arn says 'get details for a specific event' while the tool returns affected entities, but the semantics are otherwise clear.

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 ('Get') and resource ('affected entities') scoped to 'AWS health events across your organization'. The org-wide scope implicitly differentiates it from the sibling get_affected_entities, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Example prompts illustrate plausible usage ('What resources are affected...', 'impacted entities in account 123456789012'), which implies context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_org_health_events or the non-org get_affected_entities, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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