find_organization

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 only says 'Find' and does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether authentication is required, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if slug not found), or whether the operation is strictly read-only. The text does not explicitly guarantee non-mutating behavior, which is a notable gap for an unannotated tool.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the core function, the second gives usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-param lookup, the description is largely complete: it states what it does, when to use it, and the key input. There is no output schema, but the tool's purpose implies returning an organization object; the description doesn't specify return fields or error cases, which would improve completeness. However, given the simplicity and existing sibling context, it covers most necessary guidance.

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 only defines slug as a string, offering no semantic meaning. The description adds valuable context by explaining the slug's real-world use ('custom-domain URL or know the slug but not the id'), which helps the agent understand what value to provide. This goes beyond the schema's bare type definition, though a bit more detail about slug format would elevate it further.

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 ('Find') acting on 'an organization' via a specific method ('by slug'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_organization by clarifying this tool resolves a slug to an organization, exactly for cases where the id is unknown. The mention of 'custom-domain URL' further clarifies use case.

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 gives explicit context for when to use: 'when you have a custom-domain URL or know the slug but not the id.' This implies alternatives like get_organization are for when you have the id, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly. It effectively guides the agent on when this tool is appropriate compared to other organization-related tools.

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