list_aws_organizations

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: item contents, trailing 30-day aggregates, YTD/lifetime savings per Savings Plan type, monthlyPotentialSavings, sum-across-items guidance, and complete pagination semantics including when to stop. This goes well beyond what the structured annotations provide.

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 functional explanation is well structured and information-dense, but the opening sentence about evaluating commitments, planning purchases, and optimizing costs is a promotional preamble that does not help an agent select or invoke this specific endpoint. This unnecessary first sentence prevents a higher score.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes responsibility for explaining return-item fields, aggregation semantics, and pagination termination conditions, so an agent can both call and interpret the response. Minor gaps remain around maxResults behavior and the X-Tenant-Id parameter, but the essential invocation and response interpretation are covered.

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 adds meaningful semantics for pageToken by explaining to pass the response's pageToken value and stop when no pageToken is present. However, with schema coverage at only 25%, it does not compensate much for maxResults and X-Tenant-Id, leaving those largely to inference from the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns all AWS organizations (accounts) accessible to the authenticated tenant.' It also gives the tool a clear role as 'the entry point to discover AWS organization account IDs, and organization-level onboarding status,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_aws_member_accounts and list_aws_organizations_settings.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use as the entry point to discover AWS organization account IDs, and organization-level onboarding status.' This tells an agent when this is the right first call, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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