action1_list_organizations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds a meaningful constraint: results are limited to what the credentials can see, implying a scoped view. It does not disclose pagination or whether only active orgs are returned, but for a list tool the core behavioral trait (credential scoping) is conveyed.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. The second sentence earns its place by providing crucial cross-tool context.

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?

With only one optional parameter, an output schema present, and no nested objects, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool does and why it matters, while the output schema covers return structure. No significant gaps.

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% – the single parameter 'limit' is already described. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter itself, though the mention of 'org_id' hints at the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('organizations (tenants)') plus a scoping phrase ('these credentials can see'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling action1_get_organization, which likely retrieves a single org.

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 second sentence provides explicit context: 'Most other tools need an `org_id` from here.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (to obtain an org_id for downstream tools) without naming specific alternatives. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when not to use), but the guidance is strong.

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