get_organization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what details are included (e.g., metadata, members, settings), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with organizational data.

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, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. The structure is 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation implied by 'get'), the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, error handling) that would be helpful despite the output schema, especially with no annotations provided.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'org' documented as 'Organization name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, validation rules, or how to specify the organization). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about an organization'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_user' or 'get_repository' by focusing on organizations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling 'list_user_orgs' which might list organizations rather than get details about a specific one.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'list_user_orgs' or 'get_authenticated_user' in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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