get_organization_snapshot_as_of

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains the composite nature, what data is combined, and proactively warns about the current 404 failure. It does not disclose permissions or pagination, but for a read-only snapshot tool this is sufficient and adds real 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 description is front-loaded with the purpose, then explains the combination, and finally the known issue. No word is wasted; each sentence provides distinct, necessary information. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 composite tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what is returned and the current limitation. It could specify the behavior when dept_code is null (which the schema leaves ambiguous), but overall it is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (dept_code, as_of_date) with types and descriptions. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states; it only restates the date concept. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('the organization tree and active headcount as of a specific date'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining it combines `organization_tree` and `active_employees`. This is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 implies usage context: use this composite when you need both the org hierarchy and active headcount in one call. It also provides a critical 'when-not' by disclosing the KNOWN ISSUE (404s) and that it will work after redeployment. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives ('use get_organization_tree if you only need the tree'), so it falls short of a 5.

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