list_organizations

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

No annotations are provided, but this is a read-only listing operation with 0 parameters, so behavioral disclosure burden is low. The description notes it returns 'authorization status' which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or whether it excludes any org types. The read-only nature is obvious from the 'List' verb.

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 compact at nearly two sentences/three lines. It front-loads the core purpose immediately ('List all configured organizations') and adds brief return information. Slight redundancy between the main description and the 'Returns:' section, but not excessive.

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 0 parameters and a clean listing operation, the description is largely sufficient. It has an output schema and no nested objects. However, it doesn't clarify the distinction between an 'organization' resource and the 'accounts' it returns, or how this relates to sibling tools like list_accounts. Adequate but misses opportunity to clarify relationship to account-returning siblings.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the schema fully covers everything (100% coverage). With zero parameters, no param semantics burden exists; the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter details, which is appropriate for a no-arg tool.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('all configured organizations') and specifies scope ('all configured') plus a return detail (with their accounts). It's distinguishable from sibling tools like list_accounts and list_calendars by its explicit 'organizations' resource.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_accounts or get_organization_emails. It doesn't explain selection criteria, ordering, or any filtering considerations. The description says nothing about prerequisites or context in which this tool should be preferred.

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