get_organization_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'get', but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, whether authentication is required, or what kind of data is returned. No side effects, access limits, or error conditions are mentioned.

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 with no filler words. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters. However, the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification, which prevents a higher score.

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?

The tool is very simple (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), but the description still leaves major gaps. It does not explain what the output will contain, how to interpret the result, or any typical use cases. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate by describing the return value, and it fails to do so.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything (100%). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. However, it also does not clarify what the tool returns, which is a separate completeness concern.

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 the specific verb 'get' with a clear resource ('organization information'), and it is distinct from sibling tools which focus on memories, API keys, projects, and config. However, the resource is vague—it does not specify what aspect of organization information is returned, such as members, settings, or billing.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like get_config or get_auth_status might also provide organization-related details, but no exclusions or preferred contexts are mentioned. The description only states what it does, not why or when to choose it.

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