list_organisations

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real operational requirement — 'Requires EVENTOR_API_KEY' — which is useful beyond structured fields, but says nothing about pagination, result size, rate limits, or ordering for a 'list all' call that could return a large collection.

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 with zero filler; the resource and its scope are front-loaded ahead of the API-key requirement. Every clause carries information.

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-value documentation is not needed, and the auth requirement plus the definition of 'organisations' covers what an agent needs before calling. The only residual gap is the absence of any hint about result volume or pagination on an unfiltered listing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline a 4 applies. There is no parameter surface for the description to explain, and it correctly does not invent filtering options that the schema does not support.

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 ('List') and resource ('organisations') and disambiguates the term with the parenthetical '(clubs, districts, federations) known to Eventor'. No sibling overlap exists — none of the event/competitor tools could be confused with it — but it never explicitly differentiates itself from a sibling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'List all' signals an unfiltered enumeration, but there is no statement of when to reach for this versus another tool, no prerequisites beyond the API key, and no note on whether the list can be narrowed. Adequate for a simple read tool but with clear gaps.

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