List Organizations

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: result ordering (largest first), an inclusion filter (only publishers with >=1 public dataset), and that the first result is the portal's largest publisher. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor anything about permissions or what happens past the limit cap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then the inclusion rule, then the parameter hint. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is filler.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies ordering, filtering rules, and the q/limit interaction, which is enough to call it correctly. The only gap is the absence of any explicit read-only/safety statement, which matters slightly given there are no annotations.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains why q exists (results beyond the default limit are not returned, so q is the way to locate a specific publisher) and ties q to the limit behaviour. That interaction is not visible from the parameter descriptions alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List a portal's publishers") plus the enrichment it performs (dataset count per publisher) and the ordering (largest first). This distinguishes it from list_portals and search_datasets by resource and shape, though it never names those siblings, and the name/detail mismatch ("organizations" vs "publishers") is resolved only by reading the description.

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?

It gives one concrete usage hint ("use q to find a specific one beyond the limit") and a scope constraint (only publishers with at least one public dataset are counted). However, it never says when to pick this over search_datasets or list_portals, so routing must be inferred from the resource noun.

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