Get Access Organization Tool

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is already known. The description adds domain context by naming the Zero Trust organization and its relation to a zone's Access applications, but it does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or response behavior. With annotations covering safety, this modest addition merits a 3.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter getter and every word 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 getter with complete schema coverage, an output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description states what is retrieved. It is nearly complete, though it could clarify the relationship to Access applications more precisely; a 4 is fair.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single zone_id parameter is documented in the schema as a 32-character hex string. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Zero Trust organization behind a zone's Access applications'), making the action clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_zone_tool or list_access_apps_tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. An agent gets no help deciding between this and related Access or zone tools. The description provides only the bare purpose.

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