get_organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no note on failure behavior for unknown IDs, no mention of what the fetch guarantees relative to the list call. With annotations doing all the work, this is thin.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The identifier-format hint is packed into the same clause rather than padding the description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. Still missing for a two-param lookup: what "account" selects and what happens when the ID is not found — gaps that matter given a 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must carry the params. It does partially: it clarifies that "organization" accepts either a bare ID or an "organizations/{id}" resource name, which the schema does not say. However, the "account" parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the input opaque.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Get a GMP organization") with the lookup key named, which clearly separates it from the sibling list_organizations. It stops short of stating whether it resolves additional fields beyond the list entry, but an agent can tell what this does.

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 phrase "or organizations/{id} from list_organizations" implies the intended workflow: call list_organizations first, then fetch one by its identifier. There is no explicit when-not or statement of what happens if the ID is stale/invalid, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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