Get Organization

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety aspects. It adds value by specifying the types of details returned (members, roles, account info), which provides useful context beyond annotations. However, it lacks behavioral details like error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, keeping it at an average score.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get organization details') and elaborates with specific examples ('including members, roles, and account info'). There is no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and clear purpose, the description is mostly complete. It specifies what details are returned, which is helpful since there's no output schema. However, it could improve by mentioning sibling tools or usage context to address gaps in guidelines.

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 the single parameter 'organization_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Get organization details including members, roles, and account info.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('organization details') with concrete examples of what details are included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_list_organizations' or 'dual_get_org_balance', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dual_list_organizations' (for listing multiple organizations) or 'dual_get_org_balance' (for specific financial data), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an organization_id. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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