list_organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts: pagination ('one page at a time') and an auth requirement ('Requires the caller OAuth token'). It does not explain page size limits or response shape, but the pagination and auth disclosures exceed what annotations provide.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose+scope, sibling routing, and auth prerequisite. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Complete enough for a read-only, paginated list tool: purpose, alternatives, pagination, and auth are all covered. A minor gap is the absence of response shape or page-size guidance, though no output schema exists to carry it.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the pagination model ('one page at a time') which contextualizes pageToken beyond its schema text, and ties environmentId to a single-environment scope.

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 (List) and resource (organizations) with scope (one environment). Explicitly distinguishes itself from get_organization_details and create_organization by naming both siblings and their conditions.

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?

Explicit routing: use get_organization_details when you have an id, use create_organization to add one. This tells the agent when to use this tool vs two specific alternatives, 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.