get_office

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it does disclose the safety profile ('Read-only') plus the exact returned fields. It does not mention failure behavior for an unknown ID or any permission requirements, but for a trivial lookup this is near-complete disclosure.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and read-only nature front-loaded before the ID-acquisition hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the description need not explain return values, and it already summarizes them as a bonus. For a one-parameter lookup, nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema already states 'get from list_offices', which the description repeats rather than extends. Baseline 3 applies: the single integer parameter needs no additional semantic nuance 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get an office by ID') and names what it returns (name, location, parent_id, child_ids). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the list_offices sibling by describing single-record lookup, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: 'To find office_id: list_offices → match by name.' That is clear context for when and how to call it. It stops short of naming exclusions (e.g., get_board_office for board-scoped data), so it is strong but not fully routing-aware.

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