org_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior, so the description carries a lighter burden, but it adds nothing beyond restating a read: no mention of error behavior for unknown orgId, no auth/profile prerequisites, no indication of what the organization object contains. It essentially duplicates the readOnlyHint.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the key concept front-loaded. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified rather than optimally informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, for a tool keyed on a profile/orgId pair with openWorld access, the description omits any context about profile-org relationships or failure modes, leaving gaps an agent would want.

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% — both orgId ('Apple Ads organization ID') and profile ('local Apple Ads profile name') are documented. The description adds no semantic detail about how the two interrelate (e.g., whether orgId must belong to the given profile), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Apple Ads organization') with singular scope, which is distinguishable from siblings like ad_account_get or campaign_get. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation, but 'organization' is a unique resource in the tool set.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as profiles_list or ad_account_get, nor any statement of prerequisites (e.g., needing a configured local profile first). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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