Get Organization Details

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains that any section may be {status:"unavailable"} and that this means the read failed rather than zero/none, warns that a partial-coverage token sees only some projects and no org-wide totals, and instructs the agent to relay quota.message verbatim. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and densely packed with non-redundant detail; every sentence carries weight (return shape, unavailable semantics, token scoping, read-only boundary). It is a long single block, but not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full description burden and does so: it describes the return fields, the unavailable-status edge case, the token-scoping caveat, and the quota.message contract. Nothing needed to call or interpret it is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds meaning: orgId is taken from health, and `window` scopes the org test health pass/fail/flaky view. These details exceed the schema's terse field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Answer plan and quota questions for one organization') and enumerates exactly what it returns (plan, executions limit/used/remaining, reset date, seats, projects, top-ups, org test health). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_project_details and health.

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?

Gives clear context ('answer plan and quota questions'), a prerequisite (takes orgId from health), and an explicit exclusion (buying executions or changing the plan happens on the billing page, never through this tool). It does not name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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