list_organizations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format options ('full', 'compact', 'summary') and the save_to_file behavior (saves to temp file and returns path for jq processing), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior beyond page/page_size, rate limits, or what happens with large result sets. The return is described as a JSON string, which is basic.

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 a compact Args list and a Returns line. Every parameter is explained in a single line. It is slightly longer than necessary but each sentence earns its place. The front-loaded summary is clear.

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?

Given the tool has 7 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema details beyond 'JSON string', the description covers the key behavioral aspects: filters, pagination, output format, and file-saving option. It doesn't explain the exact structure of the returned JSON, but the output schema exists (has output schema: true), so that burden is partially shifted. Missing explicit guidance on when to use save_to_file vs output_format, but overall adequate.

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. It does: it explains each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'Filter by organization name (partial match)', 'Number of results per page (max 1000)', 'Output format - "full" (all fields), "compact" (key fields only), or "summary" (counts and IDs only)'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema property names and defaults.

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 organizations from IT Glue.' This clearly distinguishes it from get_organization (single fetch) and search_organizations (search semantics), though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings. The 'List' verb plus the resource is clear enough.

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 for listing organizations with optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_organizations or get_organization. The presence of sibling tools like search_organizations suggests a distinction, but the description doesn't articulate it. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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