zeasm_list_organizations

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

The 'Read-only.' statement is consistent with readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value beyond the annotation by revealing the response is intentionally minimal ('carrying just the id + name'), which sets expectations about the tool's lightweight scope. It provides the read-only disclosure that's needed without saying anything that contradicts the annotations. It doesn't detail auth or rate limits, but for a read-only listing with a declared simple return shape, this is well-covered.

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 short, purposeful sentences: the first states the purpose, the second the output shape and read-only nature, the third the downstream usage. Every sentence carries weight, there's no fluff, and the key info is front-loaded. This is an excellent example of economy.

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 'list' tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description fully covers the essential behavior: read-only semantics, return shape, and how to chain the result into sibling tools. It even helps the agent avoid common false assumptions by being explicit about the minimal payload. Combined with the detailed query-param documentation, it is a complete and usable specification.

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 main description doesn't explain the `query` parameter, but the inline schema covers 100% of parameters with rich detail—JMESPath examples, null semantics, and a warning about snake_case field names. Since the tool description inherits that strong coverage, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb + resource ('List ZEASM organizations') and immediately clarifies the exact output shape ('one row per organization configured in the EASM Admin Portal, carrying just the id + name'). It also orients the tool within its sibling family by noting the returned id feeds other EASM tools. The purpose is unambiguous and does not overlap with the explicit ids-in/lookalike-domain list siblings.

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 guides when to use the tool by chaining it to siblings: "Use the returned `id` as the `org_id` argument for `zeasm_list_findings`, ... and the other EASM tools." This gives concrete integration context that an agent can act on. It doesn't explicitly state when *not* to use it or name a direct alternative list-style tool, so it stops short of a 5, but the usage context is clearly above average.

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