Get Org Relationships

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral details: free tier, immediate vs. ancestor chain semantics, empty result for root departments, and 404 behavior for nonexistent organizations in ancestors direction. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives a useful alternative, a concrete example, and a compact parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers scope, parameter semantics, edge cases, and cost tier. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool 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 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters: organization_id should come from list_organizations or get_organization, and direction is defined with exact values and meanings. This is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Get JUST an organization's immediate children or its ancestor chain.' It explicitly contrasts with get_organization, which 'already includes both if you need everything,' so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling 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?

The first paragraph tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use get_organization instead. The example of listing sub-agencies under DoD reinforces the narrow-form use case, making the selection criteria explicit.

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