workiva_get_organization

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details such as read-only safety, error handling, or authentication requirements. It only states the basic action, so the agent receives no transparency beyond the name.

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 extremely short and to the point, consisting of a single sentence and an argument list. No unnecessary words, but the brevity may border on under-specification.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use it, what behavioral expectations to have, or how it differs from related tools. For such a simple tool, the description is minimally viable but not helpful enough.

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?

The description lists org_id as 'Organization ID', which merely restates the schema title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide additional context (e.g., where to obtain it, format, or relationship to other objects), but it does not.

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 action (Get) and resource (organization details). It is unambiguous but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like workiva_organization or workiva_list_organizations.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workiva_list_organizations or workiva_organization. There are no usage conditions or exclusion criteria.

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