get_org

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the non-revealing 403 error for non-members and that any active member can read. It lacks details on rate limits or idempotency, but the behavioral info is good for a simple read operation.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence to convey the purpose, fields, access rules, and error behavior. Every part is necessary and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: what it returns, who can use it, and error handling. It could mention idempotency but is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description states 'Params: org_id' and the schema provides a description. No additional meaning is added beyond repeating the parameter name.

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 states 'Read one organization', lists the specific fields returned, and includes the HTTP method and path. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_orgs and create_org.

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 mentions that any active member may read and non-members get a 403, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_orgs for multiple organizations or create_org for creation.

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