yougile_get_department

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as return format, authentication needs, or rate limits, but for a simple get-by-ID operation this is acceptable.

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 clear sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the essential action and resource. It earns its place without any 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?

For a single-parameter get operation with high schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient. It does not explain return fields, but the tool is simple and the output is likely obvious from the resource name.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with its description 'Department UUID'. The description does not add further parameter semantics, but the schema already documents the parameter fully, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool gets details of a specific department, using a specific verb (get) and resource (department). The word 'specific' distinguishes it from the sibling tool yougile_list_departments, which retrieves multiple departments.

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 when you need details for one department rather than a list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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