get_org_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes the hierarchical nature and the default max_depth, but omits details like authentication requirements, result format, or behavior when multiple parameters are provided simultaneously.

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 mostly concise with a clear structure: function summary, bulleted starting points, and parameter documentation. It could be slightly tighter by removing the redundant param list already present in the schema, but it remains efficient.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains entry points and parameters. However, it lacks details on output format, pagination, and any constraints (e.g., parameter exclusivity), leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 0% coverage, but the description provides meaning for all four parameters: department_id, manager_id, company, and max_depth (with its default). This adds significant value beyond the schema definitions, especially explaining their roles in the hierarchy.

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 retrieves organizational hierarchy showing reporting relationships. It identifies three distinct starting points (department, manager, company), which differentiates it from sibling tools that retrieve individual records or other structures.

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 explicitly lists three scenarios for use (from department, manager, or company) and explains what each returns. It does not directly mention when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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