edubase_get_organization_department

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 covered. The description adds value by revealing what the response centers on (parent, hierarchy level, member permissions) and the dual identification mechanism, which is more than annotations alone provide.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb first, resource next, and the key detail about identification and return content all in one compact sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter read-only operation with an output schema present, the description conveys purpose, identification method, and return semantics. It does not explicitly explain the fallback rule (external identifier used only if no department has the name), but that is covered in the schema, and the description remains sufficient for correct invocation overall.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description largely restates the department parameter's lookup semantics ('name or external identifier') without adding additional syntax, format, or relationship details beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('a department of an organization'), and the specific data returned ('parent, level in the hierarchy and the permissions given to its members'). It also differentiates itself from sibling edubase_get_organization_departments by focusing on a single department identified by name or external identifier.

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 makes clear this is for fetching one specific department rather than listing all departments, and says it is identified by name or external identifier. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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