list_my_orgs

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full load, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: results include both owned and member orgs rather than one or the other. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or what an org record contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the scoping qualifier second. No filler words.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the what and the scope but omits return shape (fields of an org) and whether results are paginated. Adequate but with visible gaps for an agent planning to consume the output.

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 0% and 'Tenant Id' has no description, but the description compensates partially by establishing that tenant_id identifies whose memberships are returned. It adds no format, source, or default information for the parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Return every org') and scopes it to those where the given tenant is 'owner or member', which is precise enough to distinguish it from membership-listing siblings like list_org_members or list_my_teams. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, so no sibling routing is provided.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus list_org_members, list_my_teams, or list_teams. The owner-or-member clause implies scope but is not framed as usage guidance or an exclusion condition.

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