List Departments

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it clarifies the read-only nature, describes pagination behavior and response reporting, and discloses failure modes including specific HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404) and their meanings. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers use cases, output format, safety, error handling, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of strong annotations and complete schema coverage, the description is fully adequate. It specifies the return type (JSON array), pagination behavior, required parameter, and error semantics. Even without an output schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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?

The schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds useful context by noting that page and per_page control pagination and that the response reports how many pages remain. It also explicitly identifies company_id as required, reinforcing the parameter's role without adding syntax details.

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+resource statement: 'Return a list of Departments.' It further clarifies the purpose by explaining the two primary use cases: discovery and ID lookup before calling dependent tools. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_department, update_department, and show_department.

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 use-case guidance: 'Use this to discover departments or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This effectively communicates when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with show_department or other alternative, so it misses the full when-not/alternatives specification.

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