list_user_organizations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that authentication is required and that both membership and management relationships are included. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error conditions, but for a zero-parameter list call this is a minor gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning: the action, the resource, the scope, and the relationship types.

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 no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: what is returned and for whom. It does not mention potential ambiguity with list_organizations_for_user, but the 'authenticated user' wording largely resolves that without further detail.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is complete, and there is no parameter surface for the description to enrich.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('organizations'), and clearly scopes the result to 'the authenticated user'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_organizations_for_user and get_user_by_id without needing to open their schemas.

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 phrase 'authenticated user' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need the organizations tied to the current caller. It does not explicitly name list_organizations_for_user as the alternative for a different user, but the context is already fairly clear.

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