otp_get_org_chart

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

The description implies a read operation with 'Fetch', but without annotations, it should explicitly state it does not modify data. It adds value by describing return content but leaves behavioral traits unaddressed.

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 concise sentences plus a promotional line; front-loaded with the core function. The third sentence is slightly extraneous but not harmful, so a minor deduction.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return content (seats, accountability, human vs agent). For a simple 1-parameter tool, this is nearly complete; only lacks mention of data format or pagination.

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% for the single 'slug' parameter, so the tool description need not add more. Baseline score applies as no additional parameter context is provided 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'public agent + human org chart', distinguishing it from sibling tools like otp_get_org by specifying inclusion of agent vs human seats and accountability details.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like otp_get_org; only implies it for seeing L8 organization structure, but lacks direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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