List organisations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to state that. It adds the context that the result includes specific fields and that the id/slug is intended for use elsewhere, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core action and returned fields are front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence adds actionable guidance about the id/slug. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns and how to use it. It doesn't specify the exact JSON structure (e.g., array vs. object) but that's minor and inferable. The description is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description correctly omits parameter details. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param info. It's appropriately silent on params.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('organisations the token's user belongs to'), and enumerates the returned fields (id, slug, role, plan, billing status). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_projects or list_members by focusing on org-level data.

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?

It provides a clear use case: obtaining org ids/slugs to pass as the `org` argument to other tools. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like whoami, the purpose is sufficiently scoped that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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