list_organization_statuses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the read-only listing behavior, JSON string return format, partial-match filtering, and page_size maximum. However, it does not clarify pagination semantics or ordering, and 'List all' combined with pagination is slightly ambiguous.

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 efficient and well-structured: a clear summary line, one sentence of domain context, a compact Args block, and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 enumeration tool with an output schema and all parameters documented, the description is nearly complete. It covers the return format, filter behavior, and pagination constraints. The main missing piece is explicit alternative guidance, which is minor for this low-complexity tool.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: name supports partial match, page starts at 1, and page_size has a max of 1000. These details add real meaning beyond the bare input 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: 'List all organization statuses.' It also adds clarifying examples (Active, Inactive, Onboarding) and distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_organization_types and list_configuration_statuses by clearly targeting organization statuses.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description—if an agent needs organization statuses, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose it over related reference-data tools such as list_organization_types, list_configuration_statuses, or get_all_reference_data.

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