Get Organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the full record includes parent/children/ancestors, it is a broader/heavier call than get_org_relationships, it returns 404 for non-existent IDs, and it is free tier. No contradiction with 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 well-structured and every sentence earns its place. The core function is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance, parameter provenance, and error/cost notes. It is compact yet complete, with clear separation between sections via line breaks.

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 tool has one parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is well-rounded: it explains what the response includes, how to get the ID, when to use the sibling instead, what happens on failure, and the free tier. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden for the single parameter. It states 'organization_id: from list_organizations', which tells the agent how to obtain a valid value. This is sufficient for a simple integer ID parameter, though it could have added a bit more detail about the ID's meaning or format beyond the source.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one federal organization's full record'), then precisely defines the scope: parent, immediate children, and full ancestor chain. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_org_relationships by stating that the relationship data is already included. An agent can immediately understand both what this tool returns and how it differs from 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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'use this first' and 'only call get_org_relationships if you want JUST the children or JUST the ancestors without the rest of the record'. It also tells the agent where to get organization_id ('from list_organizations') and documents error behavior (404) and cost tier. This is comprehensive guidance for when to choose this tool versus its alternative.

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