edubase_get_organization_compliance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these annotations: role-based data scoping and an explicit prerequisite. It does not describe the response format, but the output schema covers that.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states exactly what the tool does, the second clarifies data visibility rules, and the third states a necessary precondition. There is no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 single-parameter schema, existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns (compliance overview by department), who can see what, and what must be enabled. An agent has enough to select and invoke 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 sole parameter 'organization' is described in the schema as 'organization identification string', and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('competency compliance overview of an organization'), and adds the key differentiator 'grouped by departments'. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_organization_competencies, which presumably returns raw competency data rather than a compliance overview.

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 provides clear usage context by stating role-based visibility ('Organization reporters see every visible member, department leaders only the members of the departments they lead') and a precondition ('Library and competencies must be enabled'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conditions are sufficiently clear for an agent to decide when to call it.

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