Get organisation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that awards carry granted and expiry dates and that memberships are included, which is useful content-level context, but it says nothing about error behavior for unknown IDs or how the contact-details flag changes the payload.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource identity before the returned sub-resources. It is a fragment rather than a complete clause, which costs it the top score but keeps it efficient.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does so partially (awards, memberships, credential dates) while omitting the organisation's own scalar fields and the effect of include_contact_details. For a read-only tool whose annotations and 100%-covered schema carry the rest, this is adequate but not complete.

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%, so both organisation_id (UUID sourced from list_organisations) and include_contact_details are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so 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?

Names the resource precisely ('one club or organisation') and enumerates what is bundled with it (awards/credentials with granted and expiry dates, plus memberships), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_organisations. It is written as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, so the retrieval action is only implied by the name.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_organisations, get_member, or list_member_credentials. An agent must infer from the name that this fetches a single record by ID; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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