get_organization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, what errors might occur (e.g., invalid orgId), required permissions, or response format. This provides no guidance beyond the action itself.

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 sentence with no redundant wording. It is concise, front-loaded, and easily parsed. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not specify what 'details' are returned (e.g., name, slug, plan), whether the response is the full organization object, or behavior if the orgId is not found. These omissions make it minimally viable but not 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?

The schema describes the single parameter orgId as 'The organization ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies; the description neither helps nor hurts parameter understanding.

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 specifies the exact action ('Get') and resource ('details of a GitBook organization'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on spaces, pages, or change requests. It is not a tautology and provides a concise, unambiguous statement of what the tool does.

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 makes the use case clear: when you need organization-level details. While it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, there is no other sibling tool for fetching organization details, so the context is sufficient. No exclusions are mentioned, but none are necessary for this simple read operation.

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