get_aws_organization

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

Annotations establish that this is read-only and non-destructive, so the description's main burden is to explain the return shape. It does so in detail, documenting stats30d, monthlyStats, dailyCoverage, savingsTotals, and monthlyPotentialSavings, including caveats like lifetime being bounded by onboarding start. This is substantive value beyond the annotations.

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 well-organized with useful field breakdowns, but it starts with a broad product pitch ('Evaluate current AWS commitments, plan and automate purchases...') that does not directly describe this specific tool. The key operational sentence is somewhat delayed, though the bulleted output documentation 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?

For a read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides strong coverage of the return data and when to use the tool. The main gap is parameter semantics for managementAccountId and X-Tenant-Id, which are left mostly to the schema or inference, but overall the description is comprehensive enough to support correct invocation.

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 only 33%, and the description does not explain the required managementAccountId parameter or the optional X-Tenant-Id parameter. It implies that a single organization is targeted, but it adds no concrete parameter-level guidance 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 that the tool returns a single AWS organization with Overview time-series fields, and distinguishes it from fetching every organization. It names the specific verb and resource ('Returns a single AWS organization') and even references the sibling List AWS Organizations to anchor the list-item fields.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when you need a single organization's Console Overview in one call... without fetching every organization.' This provides clear selection criteria relative to the alternative list operation and makes the decision boundary easy for an agent to apply.

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