search_organizations

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

The description explicitly states the HTTP method (GET) and the return behavior ('Returns organizations whose names begin with...'), conveying a read-only operation. It adds useful context about prefix matching beyond the schema, though it does not discuss pagination or permissions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, includes the endpoint and precise matching rule. No redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and matching behavior. Minor gaps like case sensitivity or pagination are not critical for basic invocation.

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 description for 'name' is somewhat vague ('Organization name or its beginning'), but the tool description clarifies that the parameter is the prefix for matching. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, and the schema coverage is 100%.

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 uses specific verb 'find' with resource 'organizations' and clarifies the matching behavior ('names begin with the given value'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_users by scoping to 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 clearly implies the tool is for searching organizations by name prefix, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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