rescuedogs_list_organizations

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full transparency burden. It only states the tool lists organizations with stats, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, pagination behavior, or the fact that output format depends on the response_format parameter. This leaves the agent underinformed.

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 9-word sentence. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention output format options (though schema has response_format), pagination via limit, or the optional nature of country. Also lacks guidance on how this tool fits with sibling tools.

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?

Baseline is 3 because schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning or context to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. For instance, it does not explain how 'country' or 'active_only' filter results in practice.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('rescue organizations'), and the output scope ('statistics and available dogs count'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rescuedogs_search_dogs or rescuedogs_get_statistics by focusing on 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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention scenarios where it's not appropriate. For example, it could note that this tool is for browsing organizations, while rescuedogs_get_statistics provides aggregated stats.

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