List organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the membership scoping constraint and says nothing about pagination behavior or the default page size, which the limit parameter makes relevant.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably bordering on under-specified rather than maximally informative.

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 simple, annotation-covered read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits any note on pagination or what an organization record contains, which would be the remaining useful additions but are not strictly required.

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 optional limit parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents default (50) and max (500). The description adds no additional meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (Redbooth organizations) plus a scope qualifier (the current user belongs to), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling listing tools like list_users or list_projects, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implied by the scope phrase 'the current user belongs to' — this is your own org list, not a search or an admin-wide enumeration. There is no explicit when-to-use directive, no exclusion, and no named alternative among the many list_* siblings.

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