hcm_search_organizations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that, such as whether results are paginated, how the finder parameter affects behavior, or what fields are returned. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but it is so terse that it sacrifices useful context.

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 search tool with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot know what to pass in 'q' or 'finder', what results look like, or how this relates to the many sibling search tools. The readOnlyHint covers safety but not operational semantics.

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 four undocumented parameters (q, limit, finder, offset). It does not explain what 'q' matches against, how 'finder' changes search behavior, or what limit/offset control. This is a significant gap.

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 'Search organizations / departments.' states a clear verb and resource, and the slash suggests it covers both organizations and departments. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling search tools like hcm_search_locations or hcm_get_organization, and the relationship between organizations and departments is ambiguous.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hcm_get_organization or hcm_search_locations. The description implies a search use case but provides no context about filtering, pagination, or when a direct get would be preferable.

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