jd_list_organizations

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial context beyond them — that unconnected organizations yield empty data or 403, and that manage_connections_url appears only in that case. This is exactly the behavioral detail (auth/permission failure mode) an agent needs before calling downstream tools.

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-loads what it lists, then the response fields, then the routing guidance, then the failure-mode caveat. Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information with no repetition.

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?

Though an output schema exists (so field definitions are not strictly required), the description still supplies the semantic interpretation of `connected` and the 403/approval flow. Nothing an agent needs to select or correctly invoke this tool 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is trivially complete. The description instead documents the response shape (id, name, type, member, connected), which is useful but is return-value rather than parameter information.

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 and resource ('List the ... organizations this sign-in can access') and scopes it to the authenticated sign-in's access, which no sibling covers. It also positions itself as the entry point ('Start here'), clearly distinguishing it from the jd_list_*/jd_get_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to start here and explains why: the organization `id` is the `org_id` every other tool needs. It also gives the concrete follow-up condition for the `connected: false` case (open manage_connections_url and approve access), so the agent knows both when to use this tool and what to do next.

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