get_r_company_app_baseline_plan_global_id

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

With no annotations, the description must reveal behavioral traits. The verb 'Retrieve' and HTTP GET strongly imply a read-only operation, but the description doesn't explicitly state that no data is modified or any authentication requirements. It also does not describe potential error responses or result shape, though an output schema exists.

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 concise and efficient: two sentences with the HTTP method and path front-loaded, followed by parameter placement instructions. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 GET-by-ID endpoint, the description covers the essential invocation details: it names the endpoint and tells where to provide IDs, filters, pagination, and headers. However, it does not explicitly state that path_params is required (the {id} placeholder implies it) or clarify which headers are typically needed. The output schema presumably covers return values, so this isn't a major gap.

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 the description compensates by explaining that path_params hold route IDs, query holds filters and pagination, and headers hold any required request headers. This gives semantic meaning to the otherwise generic schema objects, though it doesn't enumerate specific filter names or pagination keys.

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 a specific resource ('app baseline plan global' with a path that includes '/{id}'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_r_company_app_baseline_plan_global by explicitly showing the ID parameter in the path.

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?

It provides useful guidance on parameter placement (path_params, query, headers) and mentions filters/pagination, which helps invoke the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over its siblings (e.g., global vs. assets vs. company baseline plans), leaving the selection criterion to be inferred from the name and path.

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