Query 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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'synchronous answer' but does not clarify if the tool is read-only, what 'grounded' means (e.g., data source), side effects, or behavior on missing orgs. The description is insufficient.

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 sentence of 12 words, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, it omits crucial information about parameters and usage, which reduces its effectiveness. It is concise but not adequately informative.

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 has 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It fails to describe parameter semantics, usage scenarios, or return value expectations. The description is not complete enough for an AI agent to use it confidently.

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 0%, meaning parameters lack any description in the schema. The tool description does not explain what orgId, message, or locale_language represent. For example, it doesn't state that message is the natural-language question or that locale_language sets the response language. The description provides no semantic value beyond the schema's basic types.

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's purpose: 'Ask a grounded natural-language question about an organisation (synchronous answer).' It specifies the verb (ask), resource (organisation), and mode (synchronous). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_org (which returns structured data) and list_orgs (which lists organizations).

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 a user wants to ask a natural-language question about an organisation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_org for structured data) or when not to use it. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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