Get Research Organization by ROR ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations: accepted input formats (full URL vs short ID), the comprehensive return payload (name variants, type, status, founding year, coordinates, cross-registry IDs, relationships), which helps agents anticipate output richness. It doesn't cover error/not-found behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup that's a minor gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then input formats, then return contents, then usage guidance. It's a single dense paragraph (~100 words) rather than structured bullets, and the return-content enumeration is verbose, but every sentence earns its place given the tool's rich output.

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?

With one simple parameter, an output schema present, and comprehensive annotations, the description is nearly complete: it documents accepted inputs, return contents, and the surrounding workflow. The main omission is error behavior for invalid/unknown ROR IDs, and the openWorldHint is not leveraged to note result variability — minor gaps for a straightforward lookup tool.

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 100% — the ror_id parameter is fully documented in the schema including both accepted formats. Per the baseline rule, with full schema coverage the description needn't add parameter detail. The description does restate the format acceptance, which confirms but doesn't significantly extend the schema's meaning.

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-resource pair ('Retrieve full details for a specific research organization... using its unique ROR identifier') that clearly distinguishes this lookup tool from its siblings. It explicitly names the workflow contrast with ror.organizations.search ('Use after ror.organizations.search to get complete details'), making the differentiation unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after ror.organizations.search to get complete details for a found organization, or when you already know the ROR ID from scholarly metadata.' It names the search sibling and the condition that selects this tool over it. However, it doesn't explicitly address when-not-to-use relative to the filter and affiliation siblings, though their distinct purposes are implied.

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