supabase_list_organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive; the sentence 'Read-only Management API call' largely restates them. The one piece of genuine added context is that results are scoped to what the connected account can see, but pagination, rate limits and result shape are not disclosed.

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, zero filler, with the action and scope front-loaded and the safety characterization immediately after. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a returned organization looks like or how results are bounded (pagination, typical list size). For a listing tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, the missing return/pagination information is a real gap.

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% and both parameters are optional with their own descriptions (including the omission-means-use-connected-login semantics). The tool description adds nothing about api_key vs access_token precedence, so the schema carries the full burden and baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List Supabase organizations') plus a scope qualifier ('visible to the connected Supabase account'), which distinguishes it from the project/SQL siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with supabase_list_projects, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the enumeration call to run before project-level operations such as supabase_list_projects. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of prerequisites or alternatives, so it is minimum viable.

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