provider_query_orgs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description contributes only the scoping statement that results are limited to orgs the user can access; it says nothing about pagination behavior, whether filtering applies server-side, or result ordering.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the purpose comes first. The second line ('GET /cloudapi/1.0.0/orgs') merely restates the annotations title and is dead weight, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

With no output schema and six parameters, including two required pagination fields, the description should at least signal that results are paged and that filter/metadata use FIQL. Without that, an agent must go entirely to the schema to call it correctly, making this adequate but with a clear gap.

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%, with page, pageSize, filter, metadata, sortAsc and sortDesc all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 plus resource ('Get list of all orgs') and adds a scope qualifier ('accessible to the user') that tells the agent whose orgs are returned. It does not distinguish itself from similar siblings such as provider_get_org (single org) or identity_get_user_orgs, so it stops 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 choose this over the many other org-related read tools in the sibling list. The only implicit cue is the 'accessible to the user' phrasing; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives named.

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