search_organizations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well: it discloses output_format choices, a save_to_file side effect that writes a temp file, and the JSON string return type. It does not mention read-only status or temp file cleanup, but the search semantics imply non-destructive behavior.

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 one-sentence summary is immediately followed by a clean Args/Returns breakdown. Every line adds information (defaults, max, format options, side effect) with no filler, making it easy to scan.

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 four-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers all parameters, the return type, and the one notable side effect. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with list_organizations and get_organization, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, and the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: the query string, the limit default and maximum, the three output_format values, and the save_to_file effect. This gives an agent actionable meaning beyond the bare schema types 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('organizations') with a clear filter ('by name'), distinguishing it from list/get/create/update organization siblings. The concise one-line summary tells an agent exactly what this tool does.

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 name and summary imply this tool is for name-based lookup rather than listing all organizations or fetching by ID, but it never explicitly names alternatives like list_organizations or get_organization or states when not to use it. Usage guidance is left to inference.

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