Get Zendesk Organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, adequately covering safety and side-effect profiles. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, permission requirements, or what happens on invalid ID). It does not contradict annotations.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. However, it could include a bit more context (e.g., return type) without becoming verbose, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 read operation with one parameter and rich annotations, the description is largely adequate. It covers the essential action. However, it lacks mention of output format (no output schema) and any prerequisites, which for a trivial lookup might not be critical but slightly reduces completeness.

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%, with the parameter 'organization_id' already described as 'Organization ID'. The description adds no new meaning, only restating 'by ID'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'organization by ID'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_organizations (which lists multiple) and get_user (different resource), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that this tool should be used when a specific organization ID is known, as opposed to list_organizations for browsing or searching. This lack of context leaves the agent without decision support.

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