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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /odata/v2.0/{company}/OrganizationUnit), which is modestly useful for predicting OData behavior, but says nothing about whether the result is a flat list or a nested tree despite saying 'hierarchy'.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition followed by the endpoint. No filler, though the 'hierarchy' phrasing without a flat-vs-nested clarification is a small cost in an otherwise tight description.

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 full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the description covers the essentials for a simple read tool. The main gap is that 'hierarchy' is left ambiguous — an agent cannot tell whether the response is nested or flat, and no output schema exists to resolve that.

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%, with $top, $skip, $count, $filter, $orderby and company_id each documented in-schema including an example filter. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?

Specific verb plus resource ('List the organization hierarchy units') with parenthetical examples (departments, divisions, cost centres) that disambiguate what an 'organization unit' is. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, payspace_list_organization_positions, but the resource naming is distinct enough that an agent can separate them.

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?

Purpose implies when to call it (discovering org units for filtering employees/positions), but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over payspace_list_organization_positions or payspace_list_companies, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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