get_client_organization

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is reinforced by the description's 'Read-only operation' and 'does not mutate the controller.' It adds useful detail about resolving by identity, local_only data, and persistence, all of which exceed what the annotation alone provides.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by a short behavior paragraph and a clear Args list. It is concise, but the Args section is redundant with the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, it explains the return concept (tags and group membership), the identity resolution behavior, and the local-only nature. It does not discuss failure modes or response format, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, and the Args section of the description merely repeats the schema descriptions verbatim. No additional semantic context is added beyond what the input schema already supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get durable local tags and group membership for one known client.' This clearly distinguishes it from generic client tools such as get_client_details and from listing tools, making the purpose immediately identifiable.

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?

It explicitly states that set_client_tags or assign_client_group should be used to change the data, providing an clear when-not for mutations. It also frames the operation as read-only and local, giving solid usage context, though it does not contrast with other read-oriented sibling tools.

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