bonfire_list_organizations

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

The description goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by disclosing that the data is a curated, partial seed of 187 orgs, that the authoritative directory is auth-gated, and that the seed may be incomplete. It also describes the output format and pagination mechanism, providing full transparency about limitations and behavior.

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 moderately concise, front-loading the purpose and then providing necessary detail. It could be slightly shorter, but every sentence serves a purpose (context, filtering, output, honesty note). Structure is logical with use cases and limitations clearly separated.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly defines the output format including the fields and pagination metadata. It also addresses the tool's limitations and provides instructions for extending the seed. The 4 parameters are fully explained in context. The description is complete for effective agent use.

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?

While the schema already describes each parameter (100% coverage), the description adds usage semantics: it clarifies that filters are applied client-side on the curated seed, specifies the range for limit, and mentions offset's relationship with pagination metadata. This adds practical meaning beyond the structural schema.

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 explicitly states the tool lists US governments on the Bonfire platform and identifies itself as the directory for bonfire_search_opportunities. It uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('US governments on Bonfire'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool bonfire_search_opportunities by explaining the relationship.

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 clear usage context: 'Feed a result's `org` to bonfire_search_opportunities' indicates when to use this tool first. It also explains that Bonfire has no keyless API, so this curated seed is the recommended starting point, and suggests an alternative method to extend the seed. This covers when to use and when not to rely solely on the tool.

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