list_organizations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'your legal entities' clarifies scope, but it does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or potential rate limits. It adds some context but lacks deep behavioral detail.

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, well-structured sentence that includes the action, resource, a clarifying parenthetical, and output fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies return fields (names, INN, meta hrefs). The lack of output schema means the description's mention of return data is useful. It could mention pagination, but the schema already covers limit/offset, making the description complete enough for this complexity.

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 fully documents both parameters (limit and offset) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing about parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'organizations' and clarifies with 'your legal entities'. It also names the returned fields (names, INN, meta hrefs), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling list tools like list_employees or list_stores.

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 'List all organizations' implies use when a complete list of legal entities is needed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The description does not name sibling tools or edge cases, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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