List my LinkedIn organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it names the Community Management API and the required scope rw_organization_admin. It also clarifies the membership/administrator constraint, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 conveys the resource, the authentication constraint, and the API/scope context. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or title.

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 with one optional parameter, the description includes the essential context: what is listed, who it is listed for, and the required scope. The role parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema documents it, so the overall tool definition is adequate.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'role' parameter at all. The schema's enum and default provide some self-documentation, but the description fails to explain how role filters the returned organizations. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a clearly defined resource ('LinkedIn company pages the authenticated member administers'). It also names the underlying API and scope, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. Sibling tools are all profile/post actions, so there is no risk of confusion.

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 clearly states that this lists organizations the authenticated member administers, which implies it should be used when the agent needs the member's manageable LinkedIn organizations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or conditions, but none of the sibling tools overlap with this listing function, so the context is sufficient.

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