get_organization_department_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes the return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, straightforward sentence: 'Get information about a department in an organization.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'Retrieve details' instead of 'Get information') to enhance clarity without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (a read operation with 2 required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, potential errors, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to adequately guide the 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'organizationId' and 'id' clearly documented as 'Organization ID' and 'Department ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get information about a department in an organization' clearly states the verb ('Get information') and resource ('department in an organization'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what information is retrieved and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_organization_department_ancestors' or 'list_organization_departments', which handle related department data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing specific IDs, compare it to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_organization_departments' for multiple departments), or indicate any usage constraints, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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