search_organizations

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavior. It states results are ordered by relevance and implies searching across all organization fields. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (offset vs cursor), and what happens with no results. The description is moderately transparent but leaves gaps.

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 'Workflow tips' and 'Common use cases' sections. It front-loads the purpose. Although it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence contributes useful context. Minor redundancy with schema exists but does not detract significantly.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain the response structure, return fields, or error handling. It mentions 'include_fields to limit response data' but does not elaborate on what the default response contains. This is a significant gap for an API tool with moderate complexity.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds value through examples (e.g., 'exact match' usage) and clarifies the 'fields' parameter with specific field names. However, the added information is not essential beyond the schema, so baseline 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 starts with 'Search for organizations with advanced filtering options,' clearly indicating the verb (search) and resource (organizations). It mentions 'organization-specific search' which distinguishes it from universal search. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'organizations_search,' which appears to serve the same purpose, causing potential confusion.

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 workflow tips (minimum term length, fields to search, exact_match, include_fields) and common use cases with examples. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'organizations_search' or 'search_universal,' nor does it mention when not to use it.

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