Get a department

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing on top of that — no return shape, no error behavior, no auth context — leaving it with zero incremental behavioral value.

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 three-word fragment is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: it carries no actionable content and nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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 single-parameter read tool with a complete schema and safety annotations, the bar is low, but the description still fails to say what a 'get' returns or how it differs from list_departments. The agent is left to reconstruct the tool's purpose entirely from structured fields.

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 100% and the single parameter (departmentId) is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about the ID's format, source, or constraints.

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?

"One department." restates the title ("Get a department") rather than describing the operation; it names the resource but not a verb or scope. The singular form weakly implies a single-record fetch versus list_departments, but the description itself does no real distinguishing work.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling list_departments, and no indication that this is the ID-based lookup. An agent must infer the routing from the tool name and sibling list alone.

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