list_organisations

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool lists organisations and the default one, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential side effects. For a read-only listing tool, the description is minimally adequate.

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?

Description is a single concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools and sets correct expectations.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that it lists 'connected' organisations and indicates the default one, providing semantic context.

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?

Description clearly states that the tool lists connected Xero organisations and identifies the default one. It uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'organisations', and distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on contacts, invoices, and accounts.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is obvious given the tool's simplicity and the sibling tools' focus on different entities. The description implies usage for retrieving connected organisations.

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