Check organization (onboarding)

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry the burden. It discloses what it checks (existence + resumability) but doesn't explain the return format, side effects (none assumed), or what 'incomplete onboarding can be resumed' implies. The 'can be resumed' is vague, leaves agent unsure what to do with the result.

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, front-loaded with the core check purpose. The 'Use before' guidance is efficient and 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?

No output schema and no annotations. Tool has two simple params, but the description lacks critical behavioral details: what does it return? What are the possible outcomes (exists, not exists, resumable)? What does the agent do with the result? This matters because the tool is a categorical check – without response semantics, the agent may call it but not know how to act on the result. Given the low complexity, many would be adequate, but here the missing return behavior is a real gap.

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 coverage 50% – companyName is undocumented (just a string), but the description mentions company for input matching. companyIdNumber is documented ('9-digit company/tax id'). Description adds the purpose of combining these two fields (checking existence), but doesn't add format expectations for companyName. With 50% coverage, description partially compensates but not fully.

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?

Clear verb 'check' plus specific resource (organization) and criteria (company + tax id). Distinguishes itself from create_trial_account and other organization-related tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before creating a new trial', which sets clear precondition. But no mention of alternatives or when NOT to use (e.g., when resuming without checking). No exclusions beyond that.

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