mfc_ca_getDepartments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only says 'gets departments.' It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, what the return shape looks like, or how the optional availability filter behaves in practice.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is concise and immediately communicates the basic action.

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 one-optional-parameter fetcher, the minimal description plus well-documented schema is workable, but the absence of annotations and output schema leaves gaps around return format, default behavior, and authentication. The description is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 tool description does not mention parameters, but the input schema fully documents the single optional 'available' boolean and explicitly clarifies that false means all records (active plus inactive), not inactive-only. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 '部門を取得します' ('Gets departments') states a clear action and resource, so an agent knows the tool retrieves department data. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that deal with accounts, taxes, journals, and trade partners, though it adds no qualifier about scope or filtering beyond what the name already implies.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool rather than the many sibling getter tools, nor any mention of prerequisites, workflow context, or alternatives. An agent must infer the appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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