Get Linked-To Organisations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide (e.g., pagination behavior, empty result handling). It merely restates parameters.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence is necessary, and the key information is front-loaded. No fluff.

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 has 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states what the tool returns (linked organisations). It could mention the return format (array of objects) but is largely complete for the complexity level.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning: startIndex for pagination start, retrieveSize for count, sort field, searchText for name filtering. This adds value over the schema's type and constraint information.

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 title and description clearly state the tool returns all organisations linked TO the current organisation (customers, subsidiaries). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like machship_get_linked_from_organisations (reverse direction) and machship_get_organisation_links (general).

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 implies usage context by specifying direction ('linked TO'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_linked_from_organisations or get_organisation_links. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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