gbif_registry_get_organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing the payload contents (contacts, addresses, datasets published, endorsement status, institutional information), which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: purpose first, returned fields second. Every clause earns its place and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

A simple idempotent read with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile. The description compensates for the missing output schema by listing key returned fields; only richer detail on the returned structure would push it higher.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'key' fully, including its UUID format, an example, and the sibling tool to obtain it. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' plus a precise resource ('a specific data-publishing organization') and an enumeration of what comes back. The resource noun cleanly separates it from sibling lookups like get_network, get_installation, get_collection and get_institution without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is a fetch-by-key operation for one known organization. There is no statement of when to prefer it over gbif_registry_search_organizations or gbif_registry_organization_datasets, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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