List GOV.UK Organisations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds further transparency by noting the paginated nature and the fields returned, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the essential purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema (has output schema: true) and comprehensive annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the paginated list and the fields returned, which is sufficient for a list tool. Could mention the read-only nature, but annotations already cover that.

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 100% description coverage, with both parameters (page and per_page) already documented. The description does not add additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 lists all UK government organisations on GOV.UK and specifies the returned fields (slug, acronym, type, status). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning that it helps discover slugs for use with govuk_get_organisation or govuk_search filters.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to browse the full government structure or discover slugs for use with govuk_get_organisation or govuk_search filters,' which provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the provided sibling tools imply alternatives.

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