Get Organization Relationships

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: the 404 condition for the ancestors direction when organization_id doesn't exist, and the fact that ancestors returns an empty list for a root department. It also clarifies 'children' means immediate sub-organizations, which is a meaningful scope constraint.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: scope, sibling differentiation, a decision example, then a tight bulleted param breakdown and error condition. No filler, no repetition of annotations, and important details are front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and strong safety annotations, the description covers the core use case, parameter meanings, valid directions, edge cases, and error behavior. Nothing material an agent would need to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility. It delivers: organization_id provenance from list_organizations or get_organization, and an explicit enumeration of direction's valid values with their precise meanings and an edge case for root departments. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Get JUST an organization's immediate children or its ancestor chain.' It explicitly narrows the scope, saying this is without the rest of the record, and names get_organization as the tool that includes more. This differentiates it clearly from even a large sibling set.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: use this for a narrow result when the full record is unnecessary. It names get_organization as the alternative if 'you need everything,' and provides a concrete DoD sub-agency example that operationalizes the decision.

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