list_person_organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. The description adds that it returns each organization's ID and name, which complements the existing output schema. No behavioral contradictions.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with usage and return info. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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 tool's simplicity (list with two optional params, read-only, idempotent, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, required input, and output. It doesn't mention pagination or edge cases, but for this read-only list tool, it is reasonably complete. Slight gap: no guidance on what happens if neither param is provided.

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 the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds only that they are alternatives ('personId or email'), which is a minor semantic addition. This meets the baseline but does not substantially augment the schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'organizations that a person is a member of', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_organizations' (all orgs) and 'list_persons' (persons). It states the identification methods (personId or email) and return contents.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Provide personId or email', indicating how to invoke. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool, the context of sibling tools (e.g., list_organizations) makes the differentiation clear. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, but the usage context is clear.

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