get_organization_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral nuance by noting the tool returns 'bounded' results and that full/all components must be explicitly requested. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 that states the purpose and key behavioral requirement ('Request full/all explicitly') without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a tool whose schema carries detailed parameter information.

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 tool with five parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is terse but the schema fills in all parameter details. The description mentions the key components and the explicit request requirement, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope. No critical information is missing given the schema and annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds a high-level hint about requesting full/all, which relates to detailLevel and the 'all' flags, but it does not elaborate on individual parameter semantics 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 states a clear purpose: 'Load compact organization details plus selected bounded children, limits, and custom-property context.' It identifies the resource (organization) and the specific components (children, limits, custom properties) that can be included, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_device_context or get_scheduled_task_context.

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 usage when organization context is needed and hints at how to request full details ('Request full/all explicitly'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_organizations or get_current_user. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools.

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