get_legal_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of legal entities with specific fields, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it), nor does it mention any authentication, pagination, or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple list operation but leaves some behavioral traits unstated.

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, clear sentence. It front-loads the core action ('Get all legal entities'), immediately scopes to the organization, and lists the return fields efficiently. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what the tool returns and the scope. It does not mention pagination or error cases, but for a simple list endpoint this is not a significant gap. Overall, an agent can call it correctly with the information provided.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it avoids adding any unnecessary 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'legal entities', scoped to the 'Timelog organization'. It also enumerates the returned fields (ID, name, active status, currency, country), which distinguishes it from other get_* tools by specifying exactly what information is retrieved.

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?

The description makes clear that this is the tool for retrieving all legal entities in the organization. It provides clear context and implies usage for any request needing legal entity data. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives, though no direct sibling for legal entities exists, so the ambiguity is minimal.

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