eb_my_organizations

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the organizer perspective and downstream usage, but does not disclose return format or pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies. This is adequate given annotations, but not rich.

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 sentences, each serving a purpose. The first states the core function, the second gives actionable guidance. No redundancy or fluff.

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 list tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and downstream usage. It implies the return contains org IDs, which is the key information needed. It lacks explicit mention of pagination limits or response structure, which is a minor gap.

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%: the single parameter 'continuation' is fully described as a pagination token. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool lists organizations the authenticated user belongs to, with 'organizer side' adding crucial scope. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like eb_my_orders and eb_me, and mentions how to use the output with other org tools.

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 explicit downstream guidance: 'Use the returned org id with eb_org_events / eb_org_attendees / eb_org_orders.' This implies when this tool is the entry point, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like eb_me, which could be relevant.

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