identity_get_org_sub_orgs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the tool is deprecated, requires org-owner or platform-operator role via an access policy table, and returns sub-orgs for a passed Org ID. It does not describe pagination or return shape, keeping it below a 5.

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 deprecation notice is correctly front-loaded, but the embedded markdown access-policy table is rendered as raw HTML entities (✔️, ❌) that add noise rather than clarity. The REST path restated at the end duplicates the annotation title.

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 exists, but for a simple read-only list endpoint the description covers purpose, deprecation, replacement, and authorization requirements. The only shortfall is that the replacement is an API path rather than an MCP tool reference.

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?

Only one parameter (orgId) with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents it as a path param. The description adds that the passed Org ID scopes the sub-org listing, which is minimal beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 first line states a specific verb and resource ('Get all organization's sub-orgs') and immediately marks the tool as deprecated with a named replacement. An agent can distinguish this from sibling identity_* list tools without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly says when NOT to use it ('[DEPRECATED]') and points to an alternative (the /cloudapi/1.0.0/orgs API), plus states the prerequisite roles (org owner or platform operator). The gap is that the alternative is a raw REST path rather than a callable sibling tool name, so the agent isn't told which MCP tool to switch to.

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