identity_get_user_default_org

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: deprecated status, the migration target, the one-org-per-user cardinality constraint, and a per-role access matrix. It stops short of describing the payload shape.

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 two most important facts, DEPRECATED and the replacement endpoint, are front-loaded in the first two lines. The role/access markdown table is boilerplate and renders as escaped HTML entities (✔️), adding visual noise for an endpoint the agent is told not to use, but the overall length remains modest.

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 parameterless, read-only, deprecated GET with no output schema, the description covers deprecation, replacement, authorization and cardinality. The only gap is that return-value shape (the organization record) is never hinted at, which matters slightly more because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the note that the call implicitly targets 'the currently logged in user' is the only implicit-input clarification needed and it is present.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the currently logged in user's organizations') and couples it with the concrete endpoint path, so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not name any of the numerous nearby siblings (e.g. identity_get_user_orgs, identity_get_logged_in_user_details), but the deprecation banner plus the cardinality note ('one user can belong to exactly one organization') makes the scope unambiguous.

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 tells the agent not to use this route and names the replacement ('/oidc/userinfo'), which is the strongest form of when-not-to-use guidance. It also documents which roles may call it. What it lacks is any comparison against sibling MCP tools, so the agent must infer the mapping between the HTTP path and the tool it should call instead.

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