identity_get_user_orgs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: deprecation status, the one-org-per-user cardinality, and role-based access. It says nothing about how the two pagination parameters behave in a single-org result set, which is the one non-obvious behavior an agent would want.

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?

Deprecation and the replacement pointer are correctly front-loaded, but the markdown access-policy table is bulky for a read-only, single-result call, and the trailing 'GET /csp/gateway/am/api/v2/loggedin/user/orgs' line duplicates the annotation title verbatim without adding 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 zero-required-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned ('detailed information for the organization'), who can call it, and that it is superseded. Only pagination semantics are left unexplained, a minor gap given a single-org result.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (pageLimit, pageStart) carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description never mentions pagination at all, which is baseline behavior when the schema is fully documented.

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 adds a scoping fact (one user belongs to exactly one org, result contains detailed org info). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as identity_get_user_org_info or identity_get_logged_in_user_details, so an agent still has to compare schemas.

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?

Leads with a deprecation marker and points to a replacement ('Use this API instead: /oidc/userinfo'), and the access-policy table tells the agent which roles may call it. The alternative is a raw REST endpoint rather than a sibling MCP tool, and no sibling tool is named as the substitute, which keeps it below a 5.

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