get_organization_form

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. However, it merely restates the action implied by the name ('get') and adds 'by code' which is a parameter detail, not a behavioral disclosure. It does not mention error handling (e.g., not found case), read-only nature, or any other behavioral traits beyond what is obvious.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 single-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states the function. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting that it returns a single record and contrasting with the plural sibling, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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% with 'Organization form code (e.g., AS, ENK, ASA)', so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description's 'by code' adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description provides no extra parameter semantics.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves a specific organization form by code, distinguishing it from sibling 'get_organization_forms' which lists forms. The verb 'get' and resource 'organization form' are specific, and 'by code' adds the lookup scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the singular version and should be used when a specific code is known, or that 'get_organization_forms' is for listing all. No exclusions or alternative references provided.

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