wsl_get_organization

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, already clarifying the operation is safe. The description adds value by specifying the returned content (description, contact, dataset overview) and providing an example, which enriches understanding beyond the annotation's simple safety hints.

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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, what it provides, an example, and parameter explanations. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value, and the docstring format aids readability.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, parameters, and an example. However, it does not mention any error conditions (e.g., invalid slug) or specify the output format, nor does it reference siblings. Slightly more completeness would be ideal.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0% at the top level, the description explicitly lists and explains both parameters (name and include_datasets) with examples and clear German labels, compensating for the lack of inline schema descriptions. The docstring format adds clarity beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it returns details of a WSL research unit including its datasets, with specific verb 'gibt ... zurück' and resource 'Forschungseinheit'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wsl_list_organizations by focusing on details of a single organization, and provides a concrete example ('slf').

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 implies use when needing details of a specific organization via slug, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like wsl_list_organizations for listing all organizations or wsl_get_dataset for a single dataset. No when-not or direct comparisons to siblings are provided.

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