organizations_list_permitted_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that results depend on visibility settings, user roles, team assignments, and sharing rules, and lists the fields in each entry. This provides significant behavioral context, but it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only (though 'list' implies it) or mention any rate limits or authentication requirements. Still, it is fairly transparent.

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 with bullet points and sections, making it easy to parse. It front-loads the main action. However, it is somewhat lengthy with a list of entry fields and use cases; some sentences could be more concise without losing value. Overall, it is good but not maximally concise.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the fields in each entry and explaining the determination logic. It provides a solid understanding of what the tool returns. However, it lacks details on pagination, ordering, error handling, or limits, which would be useful for complete context. It is mostly complete for a basic list tool.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'id' (number) with description 'Organization ID', covering 100% of parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as format, range, or typical values. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing users permitted to access an organization. It specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'users permitted to access an organization', and distinguishes from sibling tools like organizations_get and organizations_list by focusing on user permissions. The inclusion of details about what determines permission and what each entry contains further clarifies its unique role.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, listing use cases such as security auditing and access management. It also notes that results depend on visibility settings, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools like organizations_get or users_list, which could help an AI agent differentiate among siblings.

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