get_organization_details

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the OAuth token requirement and the explicit statement that organization users are not returned. It does not describe the payload shape, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, discovery alternative, exclusion alternative, auth prerequisite. The core verb+resource is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 two-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers what to pass, how to obtain the id, what it does not return, and the auth requirement. It does not hint at the returned organization fields, but with annotations carrying safety and the schema carrying both params, that omission is minor.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and includes format patterns (env_<id>, org_<id>) for both parameters, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format, resolution, or constraint detail beyond it — the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Read one organization by id.' It explicitly carves out what it is not ('does not list the organization users') and names the sibling that does, so it is distinguishable from list_organizations and list_organization_users without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use list_organizations to discover an id, use list_organization_users for user listings. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated with the alternative named, leaving nothing to inference.

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