hcm_get_organization

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a read-only operation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—it does not mention what the tool returns, how errors are handled (e.g., 404 if ID not found), or any permissions needed. Since annotations already cover safety, the description's lack of added context lowers the score, though it does not contradict the annotation.

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, concise sentence: 'Get organization by id.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains zero filler, and is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-id operation. 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?

Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is somewhat complete but lacks explicit mention of the return behavior or error cases (e.g., what happens if the ID is not found). Since there is no output schema, the description could have clarified the expected response, but it does not. It is adequate for a basic operation but leaves minor gaps.

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% and the schema only defines organizationId (string, required). The description's phrase 'by id' gives some semantic meaning, indicating that the parameter is an ID, which is helpful. However, it does not specify the ID format (e.g., UUID vs numeric) or provide additional interpretation. Given the very low coverage, the description partially compensates but does not fully clarify parameter semantics.

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 'Get organization by id' clearly states the action (get), resource (organization), and identification method (by id). It distinguishes from search tools like hcm_search_organizations, but does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings such as hcm_get_org_hierarchy, which may also involve fetching organization-related data. Thus, it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 usage guidance whatsoever. It does not indicate when to prefer this tool over alternatives like hcm_search_organizations (for searching) or hcm_get_org_hierarchy (for hierarchy). No exclusions or context are given, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage from the name alone.

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