provider_get_org

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 fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond the raw endpoint path, which itself duplicates the annotation title — no auth requirements, visibility scope, or response 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?

It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second line is the REST endpoint already present in the annotation title, so it doesn't earn its place. One useful sentence plus one redundant line.

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 simple single-resource read with full annotation coverage and complete schema descriptions, this is minimally sufficient — an agent can invoke it correctly. However, with no output schema, the description could say what fields the org object returns or note visibility scoping, which it omits.

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% (orgUrn documented as a path parameter), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no format details or hints on where to obtain the URN, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get specified organization'), which is clear enough for an agent to know this fetches a single org. It does not differentiate from the sibling provider_query_orgs (listing) or identity_get_orgs_by_org_id, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus provider_query_orgs or the identity org-lookup siblings, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing the org URN from a prior lookup. The agent must infer the single-vs-list distinction on its own.

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