search_organization

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

With no annotations available, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Search for organizations' implies a non-mutating lookup, but it does not describe match semantics, scoping, pagination, or result contents. The behavior is minimally transparent but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence that delivers the core purpose and examples with no wasted words. It is easy to parse, though it could carry a bit more useful context without becoming verbose.

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 two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, the basic invocation details are covered. However, there is no output schema and no usage guidance, so an agent still lacks context about expected results and when to choose this tool over sibling searches.

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 already documents both parameters with descriptions, defaults, and constraints, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'organizations' context but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the exact action ('Search') and resource ('organizations') with clarifying examples like 'companies, government bodies'. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling search_* tools, but the resource type is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool targets.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over siblings such as search_threat_actor, search_sector, or search_location. The description only states what the tool does, not under which conditions it should be selected.

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