fcsc_list_organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no further behavioral context (no note on result size, pagination, or freshness), so with annotations carrying the load a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the routing hint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description only needs to convey purpose and placement in the workflow, which it does. A minor gap is omitting any note on ordering or result size for what is a full listing.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies a no-argument full listing.

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 a specific verb and resource with a clear scope ('List all CKAN organizations publishing on the FCSC portal'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools such as list_features or data_dubai_entities in the purpose statement itself.

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?

Explicitly names the downstream use case and the sibling it feeds: finding the right org slug to use as a filter on `fcsc_search_dataset`. That gives clear context for when to call it, though there is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative list tool offered.

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