get_r_company_attack_surface_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only restates that this retrieves data via GET. It does not mention authentication needs, pagination behavior, error handling, or any other runtime characteristic an agent would need to anticipate.

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 two short sentences with the core action and endpoint front-loaded, followed by parameter placement. There is no filler, though the brevity contributes to the lack of concrete parameter and usage detail.

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 tool with no annotations and an entirely generic schema, this description is incomplete: it lacks route ID names, authentication context, and differentiation from the singular result endpoint. The presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations, but the missing selection and parameter detail makes confident invocation unlikely.

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?

All four schema parameters are generic open objects with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It usefully routes route IDs to path_params, filters/pagination to query, and headers to headers, but it never names concrete keys or explains what "route IDs" are, leaving the agent unable to construct specific parameter values from the description alone.

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 uses a specific verb, "Retrieve," names the resource "attack surface results," and gives the exact GET endpoint, so the core action is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_r_company_attack_surface_results_id or get_r_company_attack_surface_domain; the distinction is only implied by the plural resource name and URL 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?

The description provides parameter-placement guidance (path_params, query, headers) but says nothing about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_r_company_attack_surface_results_id or get_r_company_attack_surface_domain. No decision criteria, exclusions, or prerequisites are given.

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