hcm_get_requisition

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation; the description simply repeats 'Get' without adding behavioral context such as response shape, null behavior, required permissions, or rate limits. It adds no information beyond what the annotation and name already convey.

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. It conveys the essential operation efficiently and is easy for an agent to scan.

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 read-only getter with one required parameter, this is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and no description of what is returned, nor any mention of alternates like hcm_search_requisitions, leaving clear but 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%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameter. It does not: 'by id' merely restates the requisitionId parameter name and gives no format, source, or examples. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaningful semantic detail.

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 identifies a clear resource ('recruiting job requisition') with a lookup key ('by id'). It is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like hcm_search_requisitions or hcm_get_job.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hcm_search_requisitions or hcm_get_job. The 'by id' phrasing implies a single-record lookup, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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