get_r_company_attack_surface_results_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; stating 'Calls GET' and describing query filters/pagination indicates a read-style operation. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, error behavior, or what happens with the optional `body` parameter, so transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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?

One compact sentence contains the route and the role of each parameter slot with no filler. The key action and route are front-loaded, so the agent gets the essential information immediately.

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 four-parameter GET tool with no schema descriptions, the description covers the route and parameter slots but leaves the concrete filter/pagination keys, header names, and body treatment unspecified. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input details are still too vague for fully reliable invocation.

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%, but the description adds useful mapping: route IDs go in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers. It does not name the actual supported filters, pagination parameters, or required headers, and it never addresses the `body` parameter, leaving some semantics unresolved.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource ('Retrieve attack surface result') and gives the exact route `GET /r/company/attack_surface_results/{id}`, which distinguishes it from the collection sibling `get_r_company_attack_surface_results` and other ID-based resources. The resource and ID granularity are unambiguous.

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 route and 'Provide route IDs in path_params' imply this tool is for fetching one result by ID, but the description never states when to choose it over the collection endpoint or other attack-surface tools. There is no explicit alternative or exclusion, so usage context is only implied.

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