hcm_get_org_hierarchy

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already discloses that this is a read-only operation, so the description's burden is lighter. The description adds the behavioral trait that the tree is 'simple' and includes 'dummy parent/child' nodes, suggesting the result is a simplified or placeholder-augmented structure. However, it does not disclose error conditions, depth limits, data freshness, or whether the tree includes all descendants or only immediate children, leaving notable gaps.

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, tightly worded sentence of 12 words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff, and the structure is ideal for quick parsing.

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?

With a single parameter, a read-only annotation, and low complexity, the description is adequate but not complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (an org hierarchy tree) but does not describe the shape of the tree—fields, depth, whether it is recursive, or how 'dummy' nodes appear. Since there is no output schema, the agent must guess the response structure. This is a clear gap, though the simplicity of the tool keeps the score at a moderate level.

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 must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does so by stating that organizationId is the root of the hierarchy, giving semantic meaning beyond the raw 'string' type in the schema. This helps an agent understand the role of the parameter. It does not explain the expected ID format or that it is required, but the schema already lists it as required, so this is acceptable.

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 clearly states the tool returns an org hierarchy tree rooted at the given organizationId. It specifies the verb 'Return', the resource 'org hierarchy tree', and the root parameter, which distinguishes it from siblings like hcm_get_organization (single entity) and hcm_list_direct_reports (direct reports only). The parenthetical 'dummy parent/child' further characterizes the simplified tree shape, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hcm_get_organization, hcm_search_organizations, or hcm_list_direct_reports. It does not mention use cases, nor does it explain when one would prefer this over fetching a single org or direct reports. An agent must infer the usage from the name alone, which is not reliable given the rich sibling list.

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