get_org_structure

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It notes that including headcount requires additional API calls, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, data freshness, rate limits, or side effects. The auth parameters in the schema are not explained in the description.

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 concise at four sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides necessary details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters and an output schema), the description covers the core functionality well. However, it does not explain how parameters like 'parent_code' or 'data_center' affect the query, and it lacks guidance on typical use cases or limitations. The output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description.

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 43%, meaning over half of parameters lack schema descriptions. The description adds value by listing valid values for 'level' and explaining 'include_headcount' (cross-referencing with EmpJob). However, it does not clarify the purpose or format of 'data_center', 'parent_code', or the auth fields, leaving significant gaps.

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 that the tool retrieves organizational structure at a specific level by querying Foundation Object entities. It lists the available levels and mentions optional headcount inclusion, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_org_chart (likely full hierarchy) and get_headcount (aggregate count). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies when to use the tool (need hierarchical data at one level) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The mention of optional headcount hints at use cases, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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