search_organizations

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the search is full-text across multiple fields, returns a JSON array, and includes a default limit. It omits details like pagination or error handling, but for a simple search tool this 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 concise and well-structured with labeled sections (Args, Returns, Examples). The examples are helpful, though the repetitive phrasing in the Args block could be slightly tightened.

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's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema), the description covers purpose, parameters, return type, and an example. It lacks mention of potential errors or behavior when no results are found, but is otherwise complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining `term` as 'Search term' and `limit` with default behavior. Examples further clarify usage, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 performs full-text search on organizations by term, specifying it searches across names and other fields. It is distinct from sibling search tools like search_deals and search_persons, which target different entities.

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 implies the tool is for searching organizations but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools like search_all exist, but no exclusion criteria are given.

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