registry_get_organization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation by using 'Get' but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. It does list return contents, which provides some transparency.

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 three sentences with no waste. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third summarizes the return content. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 no output schema and only 2 simple parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (service catalog, provider list, booking policies). It also provides usage context. Slight improvement could be to mention that the response is a full profile object, but it is largely complete.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters 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 clearly states the tool gets the full public profile of a specific organization, listing contents (services, providers, booking configuration). It distinguishes from sibling registry.search by explicitly saying not to use it for searching.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('after registry.search when you have an org_slug and need detailed info before booking') and when not to use it ('Do NOT use for searching across organizations'), with a named alternative (registry.search).

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