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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting that subscription plan data is included and that batched execution is supported via the `ids` parameter.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds bulk behavior without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence provides useful 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?

With no output schema, the description communicates the most important aspects: tool purpose, subscription plan inclusion, and bulk capability. It does not list return fields or explain the valid combinations of `id` versus `ids`, but given the simplicity of the tool and strong annotations, this is a minor gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does partially by explaining that `ids` enables 'batched execution,' but it does not clarify the relationship between `id` and `ids`, nor by example or semantics how the batched form should be used. The parameter names themselves are reasonably self-explanatory.

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 'Gets details for an organization' and adds a specific output characteristic: 'Includes subscription plan.' This distinguishes it from related tools like supabase_list_organizations (which lists organizations) and supabase_get_project (which targets projects).

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when details for a specific organization are needed, and the bulk support note indicates when to pass multiple ids. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as supabase_list_organizations or explain when one should prefer listing over fetching details.

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