identity_get_user_org_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the access-policy table listing which roles (Platform operator, Org Owner, Org Member, Service Account) can call it, and the cardinality constraint that a user belongs to exactly one organization. It does not describe response contents, but the access matrix is meaningful added value.

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 critical information – DEPRECATED and the replacement endpoints – is front-loaded in the first two lines. It is somewhat verbose afterward with an HTML-entity-laden access table, but every block (alternatives, cardinality note, access matrix, path) carries information.

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 single-parameter read-only GET with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: deprecation status, migration targets, permission requirements, and the org cardinality constraint. Nothing required to decide whether to call it is missing.

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 with 100% schema coverage, though the schema description is merely '(path)'. The description echoes the orgId via the GET path template, confirming it is a path parameter, but offers no format, sourcing, or default guidance. With the schema nominally covering the field, 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?

Starts with a deprecation marker then states a specific verb+resource+scope: the logged-in user's info within an organization, with the underlying REST path shown. An agent can distinguish it from nearby siblings like identity_get_user_info_in_organization or identity_get_logged_in_user_details because both the deprecated status and the org-scoped subject are explicit.

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 and names three replacement endpoints (/scim/v2/Users, /scim/v2/Groups, /cloudapi/1.0.0/orgs). This is the strongest possible usage guidance for a deprecated tool – both the 'when not' and the alternative are stated.

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