get_r_company_attack_surface_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a GET (non-mutating) operation and mentions pagination, which signals a list-style endpoint. However, it omits authentication specifics, failure behavior, rate limits, and scoping, so transparency is only partial.

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 compact: two sentences with the endpoint front-loaded and parameter guidance following directly. There is no filler, though the awkward 'Retrieve attack surface domain Calls' wording and the vague 'route IDs' keep it from being exemplary.

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 that an output schema exists and this is a low-complexity GET endpoint, the description covers the basic call skeleton. However, without annotations or concrete query/pagination parameter names, an agent cannot reliably construct advanced calls, and the ambiguous 'route IDs' weakens completeness.

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 generic objects, so the description's mapping of path_params to route IDs, query to filters/pagination, and headers to required request headers adds real meaning. It does not describe `body`, though that is likely acceptable for a GET request, and it stops short of naming concrete filter/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 the operation ('Retrieve attack surface domain') and names the exact endpoint `GET /r/company/attack_surface_domain`, so an agent can identify the resource and HTTP method. However, it largely restates the tool name and does not clarify whether this returns a list or a single item, leaving the distinction from `get_r_company_attack_surface_domain_id` to inference.

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 text gives concrete parameter-placement guidance: route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, and headers in headers. But it says nothing about when to choose this tool over the `_id` variant or other attack-surface tools, and 'route IDs' is vague for an endpoint that has no visible path parameter.

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