get_department

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the safety profile \u2014 and it does, explicitly labeling the call 'Read-only'. That is the key behavioral trait for a simple fetch. It adds no further context (auth scope, error behavior), but for a one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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?

Front-loads the verb and resource, then packs the read-only note, return shape, and ID-lookup tip into two tight sentences. The field enumeration is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, keeping it just short of ideal.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values and is essentially complete: purpose, read-only nature, and how to source the ID are all covered. Only richer operational context (errors, permissions) is absent, which is minor for this tool.

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 the single parameter is already fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's 'match by name' hint mildly enriches the schema's 'get from list_departments' note but does not add substantive syntax or format detail.

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 and resource ('Get a department by ID'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like list_departments, create_department, and update_department. An agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Provides a concrete recovery path for the required input ('To find department_id: list_departments → match by name'), effectively routing to the correct alternative for ID discovery. It stops short of explicitly stating when a single lookup is preferable to listing all departments, so it's clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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