organization_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the specific domain (Japanese organizations and practices), which enhances transparency beyond the 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?

Single clear sentence front-loading the action, followed by examples. Efficient with no wasted words, though slightly informal due to examples in list format.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool searches. It lists concrete sub-topics, making usage clear. Lacks detail on return format, but not critical for a simple search.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with examples. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.

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 explicitly states the tool searches Japanese organizational structure and business practices, with clear examples like job titles, payments, contracts, and industry groups. This differentiates it from sibling tools like organization_list.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., organization_list, calendar_check). The description implies usage for Japanese business customs but fails to specify exclusions or comparison to other search tools.

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