get_department_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'View a specific department' without mentioning error behavior (e.g., 404 when not found), permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple read operation this is thin, but not misleading.

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 exceedingly concise, with one purpose sentence and an argument list. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simplicity (single required parameter, no nested objects), the description covers the basic invocation. An output schema exists, so return values are presumably documented there. However, the lack of annotations and absence of any behavioral notes (e.g., handling of invalid IDs) leaves some gaps, though not severe for a get-by-id tool.

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 schema has one parameter, department_id, with type integer and no description (0% coverage). The description adds 'The department ID', which is tautological and adds no meaningful semantics beyond the parameter name and type. It does not explain where the ID comes from or how to obtain valid IDs.

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 states 'View a specific department' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It clearly indicates a read operation for a single department, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_departments, which lists departments. The tool name and argument make the 'by ID' aspect evident.

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 usage is implied: you use this tool when you need a specific department's details. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over get_departments or other related tools, and no exclusions are stated. The sibling list shows a get_departments tool, but the description does not address the distinction.

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