List organisations

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 real value beyond that: it states contact fields are withheld by default and explains why (a club's contact details are often a volunteer's own), which is a privacy behavior an agent would not infer from the schema.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first states default fields, the second states the conditional contact fields and the reason. Information is front-loaded and each sentence 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 12-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers return content and the opt-in privacy gate, and pagination is fully documented in the schema. It is slightly incomplete in not hinting at how the many filters combine, but nothing critical is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces include_contact_details' effect and rationale, but it adds little for the eleven filter/pagination parameters, which the schema already documents adequately.

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 names the resource (clubs and other organisations) and enumerates the fields returned, which clearly separates it from the singular get_organisation sibling. It never uses an explicit verb like 'list/retrieve', relying on the name and field inventory to convey purpose, so it stops short of a 5.

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 get_organisation or find_members, and no hint about the filter parameters (type, status, organisation_number) for narrowing results. The only conditional guidance concerns include_contact_details, which is parameter-level rather than usage-level.

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