get_organization_locations

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavior: output_format choices (full/compact/summary) and save_to_file saving to a temp file with path return for jq. However, the phrase 'all locations' is ambiguous alongside pagination parameters (page, page_size) — it does not clarify whether a single call returns all results or if the agent must paginate, which is a meaningful behavioral gap.

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 description is well-structured with a one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. It is a bit longer than strictly necessary, but each parameter explanation carries useful information and the format is scannable.

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?

Although the description covers all parameters, it leaves a critical ambiguity: pagination behavior under 'Get all locations.' It does not state whether the tool auto-paginates or returns a single page, nor how output_format interacts with save_to_file ('full results' vs compact/summary). Without annotations or an output schema visible, this gap could cause an agent to misuse the tool or incorrectly assume a single call returns everything.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly: organization_id is explained, page, page_size with a max of 1000, output_format with enumerated values and default, and save_to_file with its behavioral effect of saving to a temp file and returning a path. Every parameter receives semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get all locations for a specific organization.' This clearly distinguishes it from get_location (single location) and implies organization scoping. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_locations or search_locations, so the differentiation is implicit rather than 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?

The description implies usage context by requiring an organization_id and being organization-scoped, which suggests it is the right choice when locations are needed for a known organization. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_locations or search_locations, and no exclusion criteria.

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