Hierarchy: user status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds useful context: returns specific flags and advises ordering relative to hierarchy_link_items_v1. It does not contradict annotations and adds moderate value beyond them.

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: first describes core functionality and output, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with verb and resource.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it does, what it returns (with field meanings), and when to call it (before hierarchy_link_items_v1). Fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

No input parameters (schema with 0 properties). Description fully compensates by explaining the output fields (isCompany, isChief, isEmployee, avitoCompanyId) and their meanings, effectively making the tool self-documenting.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Checks' and resource 'status of the current user within the account hierarchy', specifying exact return fields (isCompany, isChief, isEmployee, avitoCompanyId). It also distinguishes from sibling tool hierarchy_link_items_v1 by indicating it should be called before it.

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?

Explicitly states 'Call before hierarchy_link_items_v1 to make sure the user belongs to a hierarchy and has the required role', giving clear context and prerequisite usage. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but provides strong guidance.

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