list_org_units

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses only parameter semantics (query, level, limit) but not behavioral traits like read-only nature, idempotency, rate limits, or auth requirements. With no annotations, more transparency needed.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus bullet-like parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words.

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?

Has output schema, so return values are covered. However, description omits context like default behavior (lists all org units if no query/level), pagination beyond limit, or scoping. Adequate but not complete.

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%, yet the description adds meaning beyond the schema: query is 'case-insensitive substring,' level is 'hierarchy level (1=national, higher=more local),' limit is 'max rows.' This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'List or search organisation units.' Verb+resource is specific. Distinguishes from siblings like org_unit_children (lists children) and search_metadata (searches all metadata). However, the 'or search' phrasing could be more precise.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like org_unit_children for hierarchical queries or search_metadata for broader searches. Agent must infer context from name and siblings.

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