Show Department

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and lists required parameters, but doesn't significantly extend beyond what annotations provide. It adds useful endpoint context but not rich behavioral details.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus endpoint info. Every sentence adds value, front-loaded with purpose. No waste or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters including pagination (page, per_page) but no output schema. The description does not explain pagination behavior, error handling, or response structure beyond stating 'Returns a JSON object'. Given the absence of output schema, the description should provide more detail to fully cover context.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description mentions required parameters (id, company_id) but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No enrichment of semantics.

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 clearly states the tool returns details for a Department (specific verb+resource). It also specifies that it fetches a single record by identifier, distinguishing it from list and other CRUD siblings.

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 indicates to use this tool when needing full details of a specific Department by ID. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with list_departments, the context implies it's for single record retrieval, providing clear guidance.

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