teamleader_list_departments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description only states the action and purpose; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any pagination behavior beyond parameter defaults, or the shape of the response. It is minimal and leaves behavioral traits to inference.

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 extremely concise, two sentences, with the action and resource front-loaded. It immediately states the purpose and the use case without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it does and why it would be used. It mentions finding department_id, implying the response contains this field. However, it does not describe pagination details beyond parameter defaults or any other return fields, but given the simplicity, this is sufficient.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (page and page_size) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 (List) and resource (departments), clarifies that departments are company entities, and explicitly states the intended use case (finding department_id for invoices, quotations, projects, tax rates). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools and gives an agent a precise understanding of what it does.

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 provides a clear usage context by naming specific downstream uses (invoices, quotations, projects, tax rates). It implies when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The purpose is specific enough that an agent can select it correctly among many list tools.

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