List B2match organisations

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

Annotations already declare readonly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the automatic menu-path resolution behavior, but says nothing about result volume, rate limits, or failure modes when a path is passed incorrectly.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with the path-resolution note following. Nothing is wasteful, though the phrasing is terse enough that it could have afforded one more clarifying clause without bloat.

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 paginated list tool with strong readOnly annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials but omits what a page of results contains and how the after cursor interacts with first. Adequate but with clear gaps given no output schema exists to carry return-shape information.

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 75%; the description fills the notable gap by explaining that path is auto-resolved and only needed to override, which is exactly the param left undocumented in the schema. The other parameters (event, after, first) are already described in the schema, so no further compensation is required.

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+resource ('List event organisation pages'), which clearly separates it from the singular get_organisation sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or defining what a 'page' contains, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 clause 'Resolves the menu path automatically; pass path to override' gives implicit guidance on when to supply path. There is no stated when-to-use vs get_organisation or list_participants, and no prerequisites, so usage remains inferred.

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