rdstation_list_organizations

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. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is stated about pagination behavior, ordering, default limit, whether deleted organizations are included, rate limits, or the expected response format. The description does not go beyond what the tool name already implies.

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, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the primary action and resource immediately. There is absolutely no fluff, even though additional behavioral details are absent.

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 list tool with two self-documented pagination parameters and no output schema, the description barely meets the minimum. An agent can infer a typical list call, but the description does not say what is returned (fields, organization entities) or note any default ordering/filtering. Given the tool’s low complexity, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 input schema already documents both page and limit with descriptions ('Page number, starting at 1' and 'Results per page'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no further meaning about how these parameters interact, such as the effective limit cap of 200 or cursor-related behavior. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('organizations (companies)') from RD Station CRM. It is distinguishable from siblings like rdstation_get_organization by the plural/verb contrast, and from list_contacts/list_deals by the resource name. It lacks an explicit scoping statement such as 'no filters,' but the core purpose is clear.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over rdstation_get_organization, rdstation_list_contacts, or other list tools. The agent must infer from the name and the single sentence. There is no suggestion of when to use it when filtering, sorting, or pagination needs arise.

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