otp_get_org

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('public profile'), but does not disclose error behavior for invalid slugs, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the returned data is structured (e.g., JSON). This is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and concisely lists the returned content. 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?

Given the simple tool (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It states what the tool returns (public profile with specifics). However, it omits the return format or structure, which would be helpful but not critical for such a straightforward operation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing the slug as an 'OTP slug' with an example ('sneeze-it') and a fallback strategy (use otp_list_publishers if unknown), beyond the schema's brief description.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'specific organization's public profile,' listing specific contents (who they are, what they publish, agent roster, links). It distinguishes from sibling tool otp_list_publishers by being for a specific org, not a list.

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 explicit usage guidance: it tells the agent to use the slug parameter and, if unknown, to first use otp_list_publishers. This directly addresses when to use this tool vs. the sibling and includes a concrete alternative.

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