identity_get_orgs_by_org_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: deprecation status and a role-based access table listing exactly which principals (platform operator, org owner/member, whitelisted service account) may call it.

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 middle is a pasted markdown access-policy table that consumes most of the text and spreads the useful signal (endpoint, deprecation) across the payload.

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?

For a one-parameter read with an existing annotation set and no output schema, the definition covers deprecation, access control, and the canonical path. What an organization object actually contains is left implicit, a minor gap given the low 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the single orgId is documented structurally, and the description's trailing GET path corroborates that orgId is a path segment. Beyond that it adds nothing about format, source, or whether orgId is a URN versus numeric ID — baseline 3.

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 lead sentence 'Read an organization' gives a specific verb and resource, and the deprecation banner plus canonical GET path make the operation identifiable. It does not, however, distinguish this from closely related siblings such as provider_get_org, identity_get_user_orgs, or identity_get_orgs_by_org_id_users.

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?

Explicitly marks the tool deprecated and names the replacement endpoint (/cloudapi/1.0.0/orgs), which is a strong when-not-to-use signal. It stops short of routing to a specific sibling tool in this server, so an agent still has to infer which callable replaces it.

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