rdstation_get_organization

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the sole burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it modifies nothing or mention required authentication, error cases, or return format. It is adequate but minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get a single organization from RD Station CRM by id.' It contains no filler, no repetition, and no extraneous details. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the role of the parameter. It does not explain return format, error handling, or auth, but these are largely inferable for a standard 'get by id' endpoint. The low complexity means this level of detail is nearly sufficient.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the parameter is a single string named 'organization_id'. The description only says 'by id', which confirms the parameter is the lookup key but adds little beyond the parameter name itself. It provides no format, example, or additional meaning, so it partially compensates for the schema gap but not richly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('organization'), and a scoping qualifier ('single') with a lookup mechanism ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rdstation_list_organizations and rdstation_get_contact without needing to inspect schemas.

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 when to use the tool (when you have an organization_id and want a single record) but provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to choose. There is no mention that rdstation_list_organizations should be preferred when browsing without an ID, nor any exclusion conditions.

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