aap_get_organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explicitly enumerating the return fields (id, name, description, max_hosts, custom_virtualenv, created, modified), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what the output will contain.

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 compact and well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. The opening sentence states the purpose immediately, and every subsequent line serves a functional role. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter get operation, the description covers the purpose, the input parameter, and the return fields. While an explicit output schema is declared (context indicates one exists), it is not shown here; the description compensates by listing expected fields. The simplicity of the tool means this level of detail is largely sufficient.

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 description mentions 'org_id (int): Organization ID', which repeats the schema's type and label but adds no deeper semantic context such as how to obtain the ID or any relationships. The schema itself includes a description ('Organization ID (e.g., 1)'), so the tool description adds minimal informational value beyond what the schema already 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 opens with 'Get details of a specific AAP organization by ID', which uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('AAP organization'), and clarifies the scope ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like aap_list_organizations (which returns a list) and aap_create/update/delete_organization (which mutate).

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 the tool is used when you already have an organization ID and need its details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over aap_list_organizations or mention any exclusions. No alternatives or prerequisites are given, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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