Get Organisation Details

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is a read operation ('Get') and enumerates the returned fields, which gives a good sense of what the agent can expect. However, it does not mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits, and it doesn't explicitly label itself as read-only. A slightly more detailed description (e.g., noting that it returns the full organization record, or that it is safe to call) would push this to 5.

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 two sentences and highly efficient. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and expected return data, and the second gives actionable guidance. No filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and easily scannable.

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 get-by-ID tool with a well-defined parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does, what it returns (the key data fields), and how to obtain the required parameter. The presence of sibling tools like organisations_search further contextualizes this tool within the broader workflow. No significant gaps remain for the agent to be left uncertain about when or how to invoke it.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter ods_code, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by framing the ODS code as the key identifier and instructing the agent to obtain it via organisations_search first. This goes beyond the schema's simple definition and provides contextual meaning for the parameter's usage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get full details for a specific NHS organisation by its ODS code.' It includes a specific verb (Get) and resource (organisation details), and lists the exact fields returned (name, address, roles, relationships, succession history). This distinguishes it from siblings like organisations_search (which finds ODS codes) and organisations_relationships (which may only return relationship data).

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use organisations_search first to find the ODS code.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus the search tool, and sets a clear prerequisite for invocation. It effectively communicates the typical workflow context.

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