list_organization_memberships

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic listing action and scope—it does not mention authentication requirements, the default count of 20, pagination, filtering behavior, or the response format. This leaves significant behavioral details undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. There is no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, and every word contributes meaning.

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 description is minimal and does not mention return values, default behavior, or how the optional parameters influence results. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about pagination, count defaults (20, max 100), and that it returns memberships of the authenticated user. The current description is incomplete for a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds marginal value.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('organization memberships'), and specifies the scope ('for the authenticated user'). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events or list_event_invitees, which target different resources.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hint is 'for the authenticated user,' which implies use case but does not compare with other tools or explain when this should be chosen over others.

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