get_r_company_app_baseline_plan_company_id

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 mentions it calls a GET endpoint, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state side-effects, authentication requirements, error handling, or pagination behavior. The description is minimal and leaves much to inference for a mutation-safe assessment.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then gives a brief parameter placement hint. It is concise and easy to parse, with no wasted words. Structure is effective for quick comprehension.

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?

With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct the call. It lacks details about required path parameters (e.g., the actual ID), expected query parameters, and response contents (though output schema exists, it is not referenced). The presence of siblings makes it harder to select without more contextual hints.

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 must compensate. It vaguely says 'Provide route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query' but does not specify what exact keys or formats are expected. The schema only has generic objects with additionalProperties, so the description adds minimal value, leaving agents uncertain about required parameters.

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 clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('app baseline plan company'), and the endpoint reference makes it obvious this fetches a single record by ID. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_r_company_app_baseline_plan_company (which likely lists all), relying on the tool name to convey the 'by ID' nuance. Slight ambiguity in the phrase 'app baseline plan company' but overall understandable.

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 brief instructions on where to place parameters ('route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, headers in headers') but does not explain when to choose this tool over its siblings, such as get_r_company_app_baseline_plan_company or get_r_company_app_baseline_plan_global. No guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this is the appropriate choice.

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