Get B2match organisation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the menu path is auto-resolved and 'path' overrides that resolution, and it defines the payload shape (organisation plus representatives). It stops short of noting failure behavior for bad ids or event resolution.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: identity, sibling routing, and the path pre-condition. The core description of what is returned is front-loaded before the alternatives.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, siblings, and the path fallback well enough to call correctly. It could say a word about what happens when path is omitted and auto-resolution fails, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented including the path auto-resolution note and the origin of participation_id. The description restates the same facts (path as override, participation_id source) without adding new syntax or format detail, so it sits at the baseline.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Fetch one organisation page') with a parenthetical defining exactly what a page contains (organisation details plus its representatives). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_organisations and get_participant, so the agent can pick correctly 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?

Names two concrete alternatives and the condition for each: list_organisations to obtain participation ids, get_participant for a single person. This is explicit when-to-use routing rather than implied guidance.

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