Организации базы

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and an output schema exists, so the safety and return-shape burden is lifted. The description adds genuinely useful cross-tool behavior: the result values are meant to be fed into the 'organization' parameter of analytical tools, which is context the annotations cannot convey.

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, zero filler, with the core definition front-loaded and the downstream usage note following. The sibling tool list in parentheses is compact and directly actionable.

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 simple one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned (organizations/legal entities), the scoping to a database, and how the values are consumed downstream. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that 'database' is a name from list_databases with a default fallback. The description only echoes the notion of a 'selected database' without adding format or default details, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: listing organizations (legal entities) inside a chosen 1C database, and clarifies the entity type with '(юрлиц)'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_databases or get_organization_card, so it lands just short of the top mark.

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?

It gives a concrete use case: the returned organization name is what you pass as the 'organization' parameter of analytics tools (get_sales, get_debtors, get_cashflow, get_inventory) to narrow data to a single legal entity. That clearly explains when to reach for this tool, but there are no exclusions or guidance on when to use get_organization_card instead.

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