get_board_department

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the single most important trait for a getter ('Read-only'), which is genuine signal. However it says nothing about authentication, whether the board is publicly accessible without a token, or error behavior on unknown IDs.

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?

Two short fragments, zero waste, and the resource scope is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it is so terse that it reads more like a label than a specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully described in the schema. What is missing is usage context relative to the large sibling set and any behavioral detail beyond 'read-only', leaving it adequate but thin.

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 sole parameter is fully documented in the schema (including its provenance from list_board_departments). The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline of 3 for high coverage applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a department') scoped to 'the public job board', which implicitly distinguishes it from the internal get_department and from the list-oriented list_board_departments. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the 'board' qualifier gives enough scope to tell it apart.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling lookups (get_department, get_board_office, list_board_departments). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of how the ID is obtained beyond what the schema already says.

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