Get organisation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, requires authentication, or what happens if orgId is invalid. The description only mentions the return structure, but lacks transparency about side effects or error handling.

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—two sentences with essential information. It is front-loaded with the primary action. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to improve completeness (e.g., adding a note about return format).

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what it does and hints at a common use case (checking status). However, it lacks details on output shape, error conditions, and when to choose this over sibling tools like query_org or list_orgs.

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 schema has one parameter (orgId) with 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. However, it provides no additional context about the parameter (e.g., format, source, examples). The agent must infer from context that orgId is likely an identifier from list_orgs, but this is not stated.

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 tool retrieves an organization including its full org.json structure, with a specific instruction to check org.status. This is sufficient to understand the core function and distinguish from list_orgs (which lists) and build_org (which builds/creates). However, it could be more explicit about what 'get' means (read-only operation) and the exact resource returned.

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 implies usage when you need the full org.json structure, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like query_org or list_orgs. The hint to check org.status suggests a use case (checking status), but there is no guidance on prerequisites or context.

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