search_organizations

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Search' implying read-only, but does not explicitly confirm safety, idempotency, or any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or potential side effects. It adds minimal value beyond the obvious.

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 (one sentence), which is efficient but at the cost of completeness. It is front-loaded but could benefit from additional details without becoming verbose.

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 simple input schema (2 params, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is bare-minimum. It does not cover return format, pagination, or behavior for no results. The sibling list indicates many alternatives, but no comparative guidance is offered.

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%, and the description only says 'by name', which hints at the term parameter but does not clarify its semantics (e.g., partial match, case sensitivity) or the limit parameter's purpose or constraints. The description adds little meaning beyond the schema's field names.

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?

Description states the tool searches organizations by name, which clearly identifies the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like get_organization (single retrieval) and search_deals (different resource). However, the parameter is named 'term' rather than 'name', which could cause slight confusion.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_organization or other search tools. The description lacks any context for when a search is appropriate or when to use a different sibling.

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