zeasm_list_organizations

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces 'Read-only'. It also discloses the output structure (one row per org with id + name). No contradictions. No additional behavioral traits like rate limits are needed for this simple read operation.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states action, second explains output and read-only nature, third gives usage guidance. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (list with one optional param), the description fully covers the purpose, output structure, and usage. Even without an output schema, it explicitly states returned fields. Annotations and high schema coverage complement it well.

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%, so the parameter 'query' is already fully described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 it lists organizations, specifies the output fields (id + name), and distinguishes from sibling EASM tools by explicitly linking to them. The verb 'List' and resource 'ZEASM organizations' are specific.

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 explains to use the returned id for other EASM tools, providing clear context for when this tool should be used as a prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the guidance is strong.

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