elba_organizations

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it says nothing about read-only behavior, whether an API key/credential is required to scope the results, how many organizations are returned, or whether bank accounts include sensitive data. It does not contradict anything, but it discloses almost no behavioral traits.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the missing verb makes it slightly less informative than its length allows.

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 no annotations, no output schema and no parameters, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what comes back (organization fields, bank account fields, ordering) and what 'key' means. Neither is addressed, leaving a read tool whose response shape is entirely unknown.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline would be 4, but the phrase 'доступные по ключу' implies a key-based scoping input that has no corresponding parameter in the schema, creating ambiguity about whether the key is an auth token or something the agent must supply. That single unexplained concept is the only semantic content on offer.

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 noun phrase 'Организации, доступные по ключу, и их банковские счета' identifies the resource (organizations plus their bank accounts) but supplies no verb, so whether it lists, fetches or filters is left implicit. It is distinguishable from the bill/contractor siblings by resource, but it doesn't say how the list is scoped or what triggers it.

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?

There is no statement of when an agent should call this rather than another tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint is that organizations are 'available by key', which is not turned into actionable guidance.

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