Get Organizations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination support (limit/offset) but does not mention authorization needs, read-only nature, or behavior when no results are found. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and pagination feature. It contains no unnecessary words, though a slightly more structured format could improve readability.

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 tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what data is fetched and pagination. It does not specify search matching behavior or error handling, but these are minor gaps given the presence of an output schema.

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 is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely summarizing that searching by name and pagination are possible. It does not provide additional context about parameter semantics.

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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Garoon organization', and specifies the data returned (name, ID, code). It distinguishes from sibling tools like garoon-get-users and garoon-get-facilities by targeting organizations.

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 description implies that the tool is used to search for organizations by name and supports pagination, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., garoon-get-users-in-organization). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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