get_organization_details

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state read-only behavior, return format, error handling, or what fields the 'details' include. The word 'Get' implies retrieval but does not sufficiently explain what the agent should expect.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loadedaine, but the second sentence is wordy, contains the awkward repetition 'organization details', and introduces a tool name not present among siblings. Every sentence does not fully earn 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?

There is no output schema, no return value description, and no discussion of failure behavior. The only contextual bridge to other tools is the unclear 'list-members' reference. For a two-parameter tool with no annotations, this description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 0%, and the description only restates the environmentId format as 'env_<number>, which is more restrictive than the schema's ^env_\w+$ pattern. It mentions organizationId via an example but does not explain why environmentId is required or how the two parameters relate.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'details of an organization by ID', and gives an example ID format. This unambiguously separates it from sibling tools like list_organizations or get_environment_details.

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 workflow cue: after fetching organization details, the client can invoke a member-listing tool. However, it does not state when to prefer this over list_organizations or get_environment_details, and it references 'list-members' rather than the actual sibling list_organization_users.

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