get_board_office

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'Read-only' usefully discloses the safety profile that annotations would normally provide. Beyond that it says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or scoping; the output schema covers return values, so this is a minimum-viable 3.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope. No filler, though the 'Read-only' clause is a bare tag rather than an elaborated point.

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 single-param read tool with a full output schema and 100% param coverage, the description supplies what's needed: the resource, its scope (public board), and the safety profile. Only richer usage routing would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single office_id param is documented in-schema as coming from list_board_offices. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 (Get) and resource (office) and scopes it to the 'public job board', which meaningfully distinguishes it from sibling get_office / list_offices. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives explicitly, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like list_board_offices or get_office. 'Read-only' is a safety trait, not usage context, so the agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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