list_account_departments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose the HTTP method GET and 'List' semantics, implying a non-mutating read operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, mention authorization, or describe pagination behavior, leaving some gaps the annotation usually fills.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and invocation details in the second. Every sentence contributes, though a sentence about when not to use it would improve it without adding much length.

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?

The description covers the invocation pattern and the tool's basic purpose, and an output schema is present. It lacks comparison with similar sibling tools, explicit guidance on the body parameter, and details on the accountId route parameter, making it adequate but not fully complete for an API-surface tool with no annotation support.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully assigns path_params to route IDs and query to filtering/pagination/sorting/include, but it does not explain the body parameter (only that body defaults to null) or the exact keys/expected values. The guidance is helpful but incomplete for all three schema properties.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List departments in an account' and explicitly names the endpoint. It clearly indicates account-scoped departments via 'in an account' and the accountId path, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_departments tool.

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?

The description gives routing instructions ('Put route IDs in path_params and filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values in query'), but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over list_departments or other sibling list tools. It lacks explicit alternatives, exclusions, or usage contexts.

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