organization_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete scope boundary ('cannot modify memberships or delete records') beyond the generic destructive hint, but otherwise restates the annotation and offers no auth, rate-limit, or pagination 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the discriminator, then the return/safety note. The value list for organization_type is slightly redundant with the earlier enumeration but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 9-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and an undocumented action_name mode switch, the description leaves too much of the calling contract to inference.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It documents only organization_type and its allowed values; query, limit, offset, item_id, company_id, manager_id, location_id and especially action_name (default 'list', which appears to control mode) are left entirely unexplained.

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 specific verbs (list/search/retrieve) plus the exact resource set (Snipe-IT companies, departments, permission groups), and implicitly separates itself from the sibling organization_write by declaring it read-only. An agent can distinguish it from organization_write without opening either schema.

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?

It names the discriminator parameter and its three values (company, department, group), which is real routing guidance, and the read-only statement hints at when to prefer organization_write. But it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over its write sibling, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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