Getting usage statistics for organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the permission requirement ('manage_organizations') which is helpful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or data freshness, which would add value beyond annotations.

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?

Description is short with two sentences plus a permission note, no unnecessary words. Could be improved by starting with an action verb like 'Lists' to match typical tool naming conventions.

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?

Given the simple nature (2 optional params, output schema present, annotations rich), the description is sufficient but lacks explicit mention that it returns a list of organizations or the scope (all organizations). Slightly vague about output format.

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?

Input schema covers all 2 parameters with descriptions. Description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves license usage statistics per organization. The verb 'Gets' is appropriate for a read tool, but it does not explicitly contrast with similarly named siblings like action1_get_org_subscription_usage or action1_get_subscription_usage, reducing differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions a required permission but provides no context about typical use cases or comparison with other subscription/usage tools.

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