retrieve_contact_organization

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces that the tool is read-only and makes no changes. It also adds the HTTP method and endpoint path. No contradictions found. However, it does not disclose potential behavior like pagination limits or rate limits beyond what parameters suggest.

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 very concise: two short sentences and a header line. It is front-loaded with an emoji and method hint. No redundant details. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (including pagination and sorting) and no output schema, the description lacks explanation of what the response contains (e.g., an organization object). It does not address why pagination is needed for a single contact's organization or how filters apply. Thus, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter (id, limit, offset, orders, filters) is described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context for these parameters, such as how to use sorting or filtering specifically for retrieving a contact's organization. Baseline 3 applies; no extra value provided.

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 'Retrieve a contacts organization' and 'Fetches data. Makes no changes.' The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'contacts organization' are specific. However, it does not clarify what 'organization' means in the ActiveCampaign context (e.g., company details) nor distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like 'retrieve_contact_data'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_contact', 'retrieve_contact_data', or other contact-related retrievals. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned.

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