List organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the API-key scoping constraint; it says nothing about pagination behavior despite a limit parameter, or about whether results are filtered by enterprise.

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?

A single sentence with zero padding, and the scoping constraint is front-loaded. Nothing here could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema and full annotations exist, so the description needn't explain returns or safety. For a simple zero-required-parameter list tool this is nearly sufficient, though a note that results may be truncated by limit would close the remaining gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the admin, limit, and response_format parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about what 'admin' filters on or how pagination interacts with 'list every organization'.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (organizations) with scope qualifier 'the configured API key can access'. It doesn't need to distinguish from list siblings since no other organization-listing tool exists, but it also doesn't contrast with action1_get_enterprise or action1_get_me, which return related tenant context.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent gets no signal about whether this is the right call to discover org IDs before calling action1_update_organization or action1_delete_organization.

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