billy_get_organization

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It only states the action 'Get organization details' with no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, response structure, or any side effects. This is thin disclosure for an API call, even a read-only one.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless get operation, and the key information ('Get organization details') is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema) but the description still leaves gaps: it doesn't indicate what exactly is returned (e.g., full org object, summary) or any error conditions. Since no output schema exists, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, which it does not fully do. Overall, adequate for a minimal tool 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers them. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 identifies the tool's function—retrieving organization details from Billy. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that target other resources like contacts, invoices, or products, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself. The verb 'Get' is specific and appropriate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It simply states what it does, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or why an agent would choose this over other Billy tools. This is a significant omission.

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