Look up an organization by name

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds context that the returned id is a prerequisite for other org-level calls. However, it does not describe resolution behavior for missing or ambiguous names, which would add value beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place by establishing the action, the result, and why the result matters.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with a full output schema, strong annotations, and a clear use case, the description covers everything essential. The agent knows what to pass, what it gets back, and why it is needed.

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 name parameter already has a clear description including the 'as it is spelled' qualifier. The tool description contributes little semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'resolves' and states the exact resource ('an organization name') and outcome ('to its id'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_organization by focusing on the name-to-id lookup responsibility.

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 provides the contextual trigger: use this when an org-level call needs the organization id. It explicitly mentions org-scoped secrets and registries as consumers. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to guide the agent.

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