get_r_company_agent_discoverysettings_mapping

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

The description says this is a retrieval operation (GET), so the read-only nature is visible. However, because no annotations are present, there is no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, response behavior, or side-effect guarantees beyond the basic HTTP-safe implication.

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 short, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and then gives endpoint and parameter placement in the second sentence. It avoids filler, though the endpoint line repeats information that is also implied by the tool name.

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?

The tool is simple enough that the message plus generic param roles gets the agent some direction, and output schema coverage is present so the description does not risk explaining return values. But it is missing usage conditions that would help the agent choose this list endpoint over the singular variant, and exact query parameters matter.

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% and all four parameters are untyped generic objects, so the description must compensate. It does add value by saying that `path_params` carries route IDs, `query` carries filters/pagination, and `headers` carries required headers, and it correctly ignores `body`. Yet it does not name precise query keys or route parameter formats.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('agent discoverysettings mapping') and gives the exact GET endpoint. The mention of filters and pagination signals a collection-level read, which helps separate it from the singular `..._id` sibling, though it never explicitly names that distinction.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus `get_r_company_agent_discoverysettings_mapping_id` or the POST/PATCH/DELETE variants. It explains where to place arguments but not why this tool should be selected over any sibling.

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