Get organization

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those flags by specifying the data scope (account-level data tied to the API key owner) and the explicit exclusions. It doesn't mention output format or error conditions, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool, the annotation coverage plus content description is sufficient.

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 three sentences and every sentence earns its place: what it returns, what it explicitly does not return, and when to use it. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the non-obvious exclusion and use case. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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, zero-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations and no nested schema, the description fully equips an agent to select and call it correctly. It explains the return scope, the negative case (not a company profile), and the intended use case. No critical information is missing given the tool's complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the agent. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description appropriately focuses on return value semantics rather than parameter details, which adds no value here.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns account-level data for the organization that owns the API key.' It explicitly lists the contained fields (tax code, subscription, NAV Online Számla connection status) and explicitly distinguishes this from a company profile by stating what it does NOT contain. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools like billingo_get_organization/profile-like tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to check the subscription or NAV connection status.' It also provides a clear when-not-to-use signal: 'This is NOT a company profile — it contains no name, id or address.' This effectively prevents an agent from invoking this tool for company profile lookups, even without naming alternative sibling tools explicitly.

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