get_organizations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but mentions only the basic read operation. It omits pagination behavior details despite having pagination parameters, says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or whether results are cached versus real-time.

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 single sentence is efficiently structured with no redundant words, delivering the core intent compactly. However, the extreme brevity becomes a liability given the tool's complexity and sibling relationships, preventing a higher score.

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 tool with five optional filtering parameters, no output schema, and numerous siblings including search variants, the seven-word description is insufficiently contextualized. Without annotations or return value documentation, the description should elaborate on result structure and behavioral specifics but does not.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters (start, limit, user_id, filter_id, first_char), adequately documenting pagination and filtering semantics without needing restatement in the description. With high schema coverage, the baseline score applies.

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 states the basic action ('Get') and resource ('organizations') but lacks specificity regarding scope and filtering capabilities. It does not distinguish this listing tool from siblings like `get_organization` (singular retrieval), `get_organizations_summary` (summary data), or `search_organizations` (search functionality), leaving ambiguity about when to select this specific variant.

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 or what prerequisites might exist. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to inform the agent's selection among the numerous sibling organization-retrieval tools.

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