search_contact_organisations

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

Description indicates a search operation but does not disclose behaviors like case sensitivity, pagination, or whether it returns full objects or minimal data. The openWorldHint annotation suggests possible side effects, but the description does not address this.

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?

One efficient sentence with no redundancy, appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete but misses describing the return value (e.g., list of IDs, names). The openWorldHint is not addressed, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 description adds that the search parameter is by name, which is not explicit in the schema. For a single string parameter with 0% schema coverage, this is helpful but lacks further details (e.g., format, wildcards).

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 clearly states it searches for organisations by name within contacts, with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_contact_people.

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?

Implies usage for name-based search but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., search_contact_people or search_proposals) and no exclusion criteria.

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