Get Organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds useful context about search behavior and pagination support, but it does not disclose edge behavior such as no-results handling or response format details beyond what the output schema presumably provides.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose, search behavior, returned fields, and pagination support. Every phrase earns its place with no padding or unnecessary repetition.

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?

Given the low complexity, full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the core purpose, search input, returned fields, and pagination without requiring elaboration on return values.

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%, so the schema already documents name, limit, and offset with clear semantics. The description's mention of 'name, ID, and code data' and pagination adds some alignment but little new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb (get), resource (Garoon organizations), scope (search by organization names), and returned fields (name, ID, code). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like garoon-get-users and garoon-get-users-in-organization.

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 when to use it: when you need to look up organizations by name. However, it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this tool over related sibling tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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