openwisp_get_organization_geo_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP GET method, which signals a read-only operation, but gives no information about authentication requirements, error behavior, or what happens with an invalid organization_pk. It adds some behavioral context but leaves clear gaps.

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 very concise and front-loads the purpose. The parenthetical HTTP endpoint is slightly redundant given the name but does confirm the method. Overall, there is no wasted language.

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 read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it. The absence of annotations leaves some behavioral questions open, but the core purpose and parameter are clear.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage: organization_pk is documented as 'Organization UUID or ID'. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get organization geo settings.' It distinguishes itself from the update/patch siblings through the verb 'Get' and the HTTP GET endpoint. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of the top score.

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 implied: retrieve geo settings for a given organization. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like update or patch, and no conditions or prerequisites stated. This is the minimum viable level for a simple retrieval tool.

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