query_org_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Look up' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state the operation is non-mutating, does not initiate a payment, or describe any side effects, error handling, or authentication requirements. This lack of explicit behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds the usage context. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is adequate: it states what the tool returns (registered name and tariff) and when to use it. It could be slightly richer by explaining the structure of the response or edge cases, but for a simple lookup tool, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both shortCode and identifierType have descriptions), so the schema already provides parameter meaning. The tool description does not add any additional parameter details beyond what the schema states, thus 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Look up') and resource ('registered name and tariff of a PayBill or till'), using specific terminology. It also provides context ('confirm you are paying the business you intend to before sending money') that differentiates it from payment initiation siblings, effectively conveying its role as a pre-transaction verification tool.

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 a clear usage scenario: 'Use this to confirm you are paying the business you intend to before sending money.' This explicitly indicates when to use the tool but does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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