get_treaty_government_organisations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (a list of organisations with IDs), but for a read lookup tool this is minimal and adds nothing about ordering, completeness, or upstream source. Adequate but thin.

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 pipe-delimited keyword cluster is front-loaded, but the return value is stated twice: once in the first block ('Returns list of government organisations with IDs') and again in the trailing 'Returns:' stanza. That duplication wastes space without adding meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail the return structure. With zero parameters and a documented output, what's present is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though the sibling ambiguity noted above is the one residual 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no call arguments whose semantics need explaining in the description.

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 ('Get departments that lay treaties') and tags synonyms ('treaty departments, laying bodies, Foreign Office'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling get_laying_bodies, so an agent can't be fully sure which of the two is the treaty-specific one without opening both.

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?

Gives a concrete reason to call it: 'Use to get organisation IDs for filtering treaty searches,' which tells the agent this is a prerequisite lookup for a treaty query. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or an alternative, so it isn't a full 5.

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