get_r_company_attack_surface_domain_id

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It says 'Retrieve' and the HTTP method GET, which clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or any specific behavioral traits beyond the HTTP call. It is minimally adequate for a simple GET, but lacks depth.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and method. It doesn't waste words and packs the key placement instructions into a compact form. The structure is clear and easy to parse, though it may be too dense for a novice agent.

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 description, combined with an output schema (not shown), is incomplete for a tool with 0% schema coverage. It fails to identify the path parameter as the domain ID, doesn't describe any query parameters or headers, and omits authentication context. An agent would struggle to construct a valid request without additional knowledge of the API conventions.

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 coverage is 0% and there are 4 parameters. The description says to put route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, and headers in headers – this gives a high-level mapping but doesn't specify the actual parameter names, types, or the body parameter. The instruction 'route IDs' is vague for a single-ID endpoint, and doesn't clarify that the path param is the attack surface domain ID.

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 'Retrieve attack surface domain' – a specific verb and resource – and names the exact endpoint. The {id} in the endpoint and the path_params instruction imply a single-item retrieval, distinguishing it from the collection sibling get_r_company_attack_surface_domain. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'by ID', which would make the distinction clearer.

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 placement instructions (path_params, query, headers) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus the collection endpoint or any other sibling. It doesn't mention that this is for a single domain by ID, nor does it provide any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer the use case from the tool name.

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