Get Organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains the one-call inclusion of relationships, discloses the free tier, and specifies the 404 error for nonexistent IDs. No contradictions with annotations.

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 efficiently organized: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by use-case differentiation, a parameter hint, and error behavior. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the parameter source, the alternative tool, the error case, and the relationship scope, making it complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 input schema has a single integer parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by pointing the agent to list_organizations as the source of a valid organization_id, which is a practical and actionable hint. It doesn't over-explain since the meaning is largely carried by the tool name and context.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('federal organization's full record'), and enumerates exactly what is included (parent, immediate children, full ancestor chain). It also explicitly differentiates itself from get_org_relationships, so an agent can distinguish them without reading the other schema.

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?

Provides explicit routing: 'use this first' and only call get_org_relationships when the narrower subset is needed, with a concrete example. Also tells the agent that organization_id comes from list_organizations, covering the prerequisite.

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