get_position_details

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 hints at a read operation by stating 'Get position details' and listing return fields, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, mention authentication requirements, or discuss rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary repetition, though it could be slightly more concise by merging the first two sentences.

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 presence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description need not detail return values extensively, but it does mention the return fields. The description covers the main use cases but lacks information about authentication parameters, pagination (max_results is mentioned only in schema), and error conditions.

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 description mentions filtering by department and vacancy status, which maps to two parameters (department, vacant_only). However, with 29% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the other five parameters (data_center, auth_user_id, auth_password, position_code). It adds limited meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource 'position details' from 'Position Management'. It specifies retrieving specific positions or filtering by department/vacancy status. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_employee_profile or get_org_chart, which could cause confusion.

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 usage for retrieving positions with optional filters, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_employees) or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or context are given.

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