get_organizational_unit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns comprehensive OU configuration, including child objects and GP links, but does not mention permissions, error behavior, pagination, or output format 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 short and front-loads the main purpose. The example is useful, though the repeated phrases about detailed, comprehensive, and complete OU information are somewhat redundant.

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 read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes the broad return contents. However, it does not clarify the distinction from get_organizational_unit_contents or explain how the optional attributes parameter changes the response, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds an example DN format for ou_dn, which is helpful, but it does not explain the attributes parameter or otherwise add meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb and resource: get detailed information about a specific OU. It also names the kinds of data returned, including child objects, GP links, and management settings. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the close sibling get_organizational_unit_contents, which may also return child objects.

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 provides an example call but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_organizational_units or get_organizational_unit_contents. The example implies lookup by DN for a single OU, but alternatives and exclusions are left unstated.

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