hcm_get_work_relationship

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a read-only operation, and the description adds that the result is a 'nested' work relationship. However, it does not explain what nesting means, whether related objects are embedded, or what the response shape is, so behavioral transparency beyond the annotation remains limited.

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 with the verb and resource front-loaded, so it is efficient and free of filler. It could be expanded with parameter or usage context without becoming bloated, but as written it is faithful to the principle of conciseness.

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 two required parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling tool set, the description is too sparse for reliable invocation. An agent cannot determine what 'nested work relationship' returns, how periodOfServiceId is obtained, or how this tool differs from related worker or relationship getters.

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 clarify the parameters, but it only partially explains workerId via 'for a worker'. The required periodOfServiceId parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent without enough information to know how to construct a valid request.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('nested work relationship') for a worker, so the general purpose is clear. However, 'nested' is ambiguous and the description does not distinguish this from related sibling getters such as hcm_get_worker_assignments or hcm_get_payroll_relationship.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no prerequisites beyond the required parameters, and no indication of what kind of work relationship scenarios it covers. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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