get_organization_forms_for_units

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', which implies read-only, but does not mention pagination, sorting, permissions, or any side effects. The description provides minimal behavioral transparency beyond the obvious.

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 a single concise sentence that states the purpose without any fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it may be too minimal in content. Still, for conciseness, it is effective.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and ambiguous relationship to sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'main units' refers to, how this tool differs from similar ones, or what the return structure looks like. The context is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (page, size, sort), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('organization forms') with a scope ('for main units'), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_organization_forms_for_subunits or get_organization_forms, relying on the name for differentiation.

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 tool versus alternatives such as get_organization_forms_for_subunits or get_organization_forms. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended use cases.

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