Get the Organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing that token info (granted scopes, developer project) is bundled in by default and why, i.e. that the call performs an extra lookup and reveals credential capability.

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?

One dense sentence with the resource and its returned fields front-loaded, followed by the default-behavior clause and its rationale. The parenthetical field list is justified since there is no output schema, though the sentence is long enough to be slightly unwieldy.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, and it explains the one optional parameter's default and purpose. For a read-only, single-parameter tool with annotations, this is close to complete; only pagination/error behavior is untouched, which is minor here.

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 single parameter has 100% schema coverage, including its default of true and the underlying GET /v1/token call, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by default' only restates the default and adds no format or syntax detail — the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the resource (the Organization this credential belongs to) and enumerates what comes back (name, type, contact details, address, currency, time zone), which is more specific than a bare 'get'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the resource is unmistakable and non-overlapping with get_clinician/get_booking/etc.

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?

Gives a concrete reason to call it — 'so you know which other tools will work' — which is real usage context for an agent deciding whether it needs this. No when-not or alternative routing is given, but there is no plausible sibling confusion to disambiguate.

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