get_organization

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

No annotations provided; description only implies a read operation ('get'). Does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or data scope.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words, front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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?

No output schema; description omits what kind of details are returned (e.g., name, industry, location). For a data retrieval tool, this is insufficient for an agent to judge if the tool meets its needs.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context that parameters are alternative means of identification, but does not clarify mutual exclusivity or requirement.

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 specifies the action ('get') and the resource ('LinkedIn organization details'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_profile, get_email, and stat-specific tools by focusing on general details.

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?

Implies usage for retrieving organization details via ID or vanity name, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use (e.g., for statistics use sibling tools). No alternatives mentioned.

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