list-organizations

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

The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and the required auth scope (sales:read), which supplements the readOnlyHint annotation with actionable context. It does not address rate limits or response shape, but those are less critical for a read-only list operation with documented pagination parameters.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action, endpoint, and scope with no filler. Every element earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool, the endpoint, scope, and schema-documented parameters provide a workable baseline. However, with no output schema, the response format is left implicit, and there is no guidance about edge cases or when to prefer sibling tools.

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 already describes all three parameters (q, page, itemsPerPage) with 100% coverage, so the description contributes no additional parameter semantics. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 'List sales organizations' and provides the exact endpoint, making the verb and resource unambiguous. It is distinguishable from get/update/create-organization by the 'List' verb, though it does not explicitly contrast with other list-* sibling tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-organization or list-customers. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or conditions, so an agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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