hcm_get_aor

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a read-only operation, so the description adds little beyond that. It does not disclose behavior such as error handling on non-existent IDs, response format, or pagination (irrelevant here). The description is consistent with the annotation and provides minimal extra context.

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 four words and directly states the core action. There is zero fluff or repetition, making it exceptionally concise and easy to scan. For a simple get-by-id tool, this level of brevity is appropriate.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and the read-only annotation, the description covers the essential action but omits context like what an AOR is, what the response looks like, and any error behavior. With many sibling tools, it could benefit from a sentence clarifying its role, but it is minimally adequate for an agent that understands the domain.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It says 'by id' but does not explain what an AOR ID is, its format, or how to obtain it. This adds only slightly more than the schema's bare 'aorId' field, which is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 ('Get') and resource ('AOR') and specifies retrieval by id, which distinguishes it from the search tool hcm_search_aor. However, it does not define the acronym 'AOR' or the exact scope of the resource, leaving some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The presence of hcm_search_aor implies that hcm_get_aor is for fetching a single known AOR, but the description does not state this distinction or mention any prerequisites like needing the ID beforehand.

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