eb_organizer

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read operation, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It lists the content of the response (name, description, logo, social links), which is useful, but does not disclose return formatting, error behavior, or pagination. This is adequate 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence. It gets straight to the point and every element—verb, resource, id, and field list—earns its place. There is zero waste.

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?

With only one parameter, no output schema, and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides sufficient context. Listing the returned fields compensates for the lack of an output schema. It does not mention error cases, but for a simple public-profile getter, this is not necessary.

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 schema description coverage is 100%: the parameter organizer_id is fully described as 'Numeric organizer id'. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('organizer's public profile') and the mechanism ('by id'). It also enumerates the returned fields (name, description, logo, social links), which differentiates it from sibling tools like eb_organizer_events (which fetches events) and the eb_org_* admin tools (which manage the user's own organizations).

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 phrase 'public profile' provides clear context that this is for publicly accessible organizer data, distinguishing it from the authenticated organization-management tools in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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