List my organizations

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so well: it enumerates the organization fields, defines `username` as the owner name for other tools, states pagination behavior with a 50-item cap, mentions `total`, and notes that accounts with no organizations get an empty list. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the read-only annotation.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: it begins with the core action and scope, then adds return fields, pagination constraints, empty-result behavior, and sibling differentiation. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only listing tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, pagination limits, empty results, and the key `username` semantics needed for downstream calls. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantics by stating the maximum page size of 50 and explaining that `total` gives the overall count. This helps an agent use `page`/`limit` correctly beyond the schema's brief field descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List the organizations your account belongs to') and enumerates the returned fields, including the crucial note that `username` is the owner name to pass to other tools. It also explicitly differentiates from `list_my_repos` by saying organization repos are already covered there.

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?

It gives a clear context for use and explicitly redirects repo-related needs to `list_my_repos`, preventing a common misuse. It does not explicitly contrast with `whoami` or `search_repos`, but the intended usage is clear enough from the owner-name guidance.

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