List organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that results are limited to orgs the caller belongs to, but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or result size beyond what the schema states.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, and the scope constraint is front-loaded. It is well sized for a simple read tool, though it is terse enough that it earns no extra credit for structure.

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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations declaring the safety profile, the description plus structured fields give the agent enough to invoke it correctly. No output schema exists, so return values need not be described, though stating that results are paginated would close the last 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% and both page and limit are fully documented with ranges and defaults, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no format or syntax detail about pagination, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (list) plus resource (organizations) and adds the scope qualifier 'the authenticated user belongs to,' so the agent knows exactly what set is returned. It does not name any sibling, but no other tool in the set lists organizations, so confusion risk is low.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no statement of when this is preferred over e.g. get_me, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The scope phrase implies usage but the agent must infer that this is the entry point for discovering org context.

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