passgage_list_organization_units

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'optional filtering and pagination', but does not describe pagination defaults, response structure, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that could have hidden behaviors.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the key capabilities. It could be slightly more informative, but it is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and avoids fluff.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the response looks like or clarify the behavior beyond the schema. It does neither. The tool has nested objects in the schema, adding complexity, yet the description does not address return values or any edge cases. The context is incomplete for an agent to fully understand what to expect.

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 describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'filtering and pagination' generically, but does not clarify the meaning of the 'filters' object or the exact pagination limits beyond what the schema already states. Schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'organization_units', making the tool's purpose obvious. It distinguishes from the singular 'get' variant by the plural form, but does not explicitly compare to sibling list tools. The mention of filtering and pagination hints at the scope, but it lacks an explicit differentiation statement.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for listing multiple organization units vs. fetching a single one, nor does it state any exclusions or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The only context is the resource name, which is implied but not explicitly contrasted.

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