list_units

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns exact IDs, supports search by name or acronym, and explains pagination semantics with next_offset and has_more.

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 three sentences with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance follows, and pagination instructions conclude. Every sentence adds operational value.

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 search/list tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers all essential agent needs: why to call it, what to search by, when to skip it, and how to retrieve all results. Nothing important is missing.

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 schema's lack of textual parameter explanations. It adds meaning for query by describing it as a human-readable name or acronym, and it references pagination behavior. However, it does not clarify how the limit and offset parameters relate to next_offset, and the reference to next_offset is not an explicit input schema property.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: "List or search organizational units and return their exact IDs." This is specific and immediately distinguishes list_units from sibling list/search tools by its focus on organizational units and exact ID retrieval.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: call this before using the unit project filter unless an exact unit ID was already returned by OSIRIS. It also advises searching by human-readable name or acronym and never guessing the ID, plus explains how to paginate for a complete list.

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