Get Organisation Links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, setting a high baseline. The description adds value by specifying that leaving id blank defaults to the current authenticated org, and that it returns 'all links', which clarifies the scope of the operation.

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 concise with two sentences: the first defines the purpose, the second explains the parameter. Every sentence earns its place; no unnecessary words.

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 read operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and parameter usage. It could briefly mention the return type (e.g., list of link objects), but the current level is largely adequate.

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%, and the description text for the parameter ('Organisation ID (optional, defaults to current org)') is nearly identical to the schema description. No additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool returns all links (partnerships/integrations) for an organisation, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like machship_get_linked_from_organisations by focusing on all links for an organisation, and clarifies the optional id parameter.

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 when to use (to retrieve links) and explains the id parameter, but does not explicitly contrast with other link-related tools or state when not to use it. No direct guidance on alternatives.

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