get_org

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

With no annotations, the description must convey the behavioral profile. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or mention any authentication requirements. It is minimal but not misleading.

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 four words and directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero padding or redundancy. Perfect conciseness for a trivial getter.

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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is functional but thin. It mentions 'profile and quota' but does not hint at the response shape or any specific constraints. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but could be more informative about what exactly is returned.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema carries no information. The description correctly implies the operation is parameterless. Per calibration, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here since there is nothing to explain.

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 action (get) and the target (organisation profile and quota). It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling 'get_org_stats' by naming quota explicitly, though it does not explicitly mention that distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_org_stats or list_org_team. The description offers no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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