get_employer_departments

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the HH_ACCESS_TOKEN requirement and the /me fallback for employer_id, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or how the 'compact summary' differs from the raw payload selected by the raw flag.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the parameter default and the auth requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it covers the call target and auth, yet never explains the default return shape (compact summary) versus the raw JSON that the schema's raw flag controls. An agent can call it correctly but not predict the response.

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% and both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the 'omit to resolve from /me' and 'do not pass 0' notes). The description echoes the employer_id default but adds no new syntax or meaning for the raw parameter, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List departments for an employer.' The resource is unique among the siblings (no other department-listing tool exists), so routing is unambiguous, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with adjacent tools like list_employer_addresses or get_employer.

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?

It clarifies the common calling pattern (omit employer_id for the authenticated account, resolved from /me) and states the auth prerequisite, which is genuine usage context. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives.

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