Get org chart data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class (board_or_agent), providing extra behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Very concise but somewhat redundant as it repeats the title. The second line with HTTP method and auth class is useful. Could be improved by removing the duplicate and adding more context.

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 read operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and provides the auth class, but lacks details on the structure of the returned org chart data and the parameter significance.

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?

Input schema has one parameter (path.companyId) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what companyId represents (e.g., 'the ID of the company to get the org chart for'), leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the tool name.

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 'Get org chart data', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pc_get_companies (list companies) and pc_get_companies_by_company_id (company details) by targeting hierarchical org structure.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description only states the function; usage context is implied by the name and sibling tools, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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