passgage_get_department

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. The description only states 'Get', which implies read-only, but it does not mention what happens if the ID is not found, whether authentication is required, or what the return value contains. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 that directly states the purpose without verbosity. It is concise and easy to scan, though it could include a little more contextual detail without becoming bloated.

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 getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally mention the return value, error behavior, or any prerequisites. The current description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent for invocation, especially given the large set of sibling tools and no structured behavioral hints.

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 already provides a complete description of the 'id' parameter ('The UUID of the department to retrieve'), covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The tool description adds no additional meaning, so 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific department by ID'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_departments, create_department, update_department, and delete_department. It is unambiguous and specific.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need a single department by its ID. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other department-related tools, nor any mention of alternatives, so it does not fully clarify the decision context.

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