itglue_find_org_match

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains matching process, confidence labels, and default threshold. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the name and description imply a search operation. No mention of side effects, which is acceptable for a search tool.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then details about output. Every sentence is necessary and efficient. No fluff.

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?

No output schema, but description explains output format (candidates ranked with confidence labels). It does not detail how to interpret results, but it is sufficient for a search tool. Completeness is good given the lack of output schema.

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%, with each parameter described. The description does not add new param-level details beyond the schema; it repeats default values (threshold 0.7, pageSize 100) already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool fuzzy-matches an organization name against existing IT Glue organizations before creating a new one. It also explains the output: candidates ranked by similarity with confidence labels (Update, ManualReview, CreateNew). This is specific and distinguishes from siblings that create or update.

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 explicitly says 'BEFORE creating a new one', indicating when to use it. It provides context but does not mention when not to use or list alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for appropriate use.

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