organization_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation (read-only) and describes what information is returned, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this requires specific permissions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points of returned information. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. The bullet format enhances readability while maintaining brevity.

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 read-only information retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and return format details. However, without annotations and with sibling tools that might overlap (like 'get_organizations'), the description could better clarify this tool's specific niche and any behavioral constraints.

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 tool has only one parameter (ctx) with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, which is acceptable since this appears to be a context injection parameter rather than a user-facing input. For a tool with effectively zero user-facing parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate as the description focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter documentation.

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 retrieves organization information for the current user in SingleStore, specifying the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'organization details'. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_organizations' by focusing on the current user's organization rather than listing all organizations.

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?

The description implies usage context by specifying 'current user's organization', suggesting this tool is for getting details about the user's own organization. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'get_organizations' or other sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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