get_organization

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the HTTP endpoint and the required Authorization Bearer token. It doesn't explicitly confirm read-only/no-side-effects, but "Get" plus the endpoint makes that unambiguous.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then labeled sections. The field enumeration is a bit long for a trivial get, but it earns its place because no output schema exists.

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?

Since there is no output schema, enumerating ORGANIZATION FIELDS (id, name, image_id, vertical) usefully tells the agent what comes back, and the auth requirement is stated. A note on error behavior for an invalid ID is the only real omission.

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 is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents organization_id. The description adds nothing beyond the name/type that the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("Get an Organization by ID") and the endpoint, making the single-object fetch clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_organizations via "by ID," though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it holds an organization_id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to list_organizations as the alternative.

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