get_r_company_credentials_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and the 'Retrieve' verb, making the read-only nature clear, and hints that some headers may be required. However, it does not elaborate on authentication needs, error behavior, or side-effect-free guarantees beyond what 'GET' implies.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the first states the action and endpoint, the second maps parameters to their slots. No filler or redundancy, and the most important identifying information is front-loaded.

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 with an output schema present, the description adequately covers the endpoint and parameter placement. However, it lacks explicit distinction from the collection endpoint, omits mention of the `body` parameter, and gives no guidance on when to choose this tool versus its siblings. These gaps prevent it from being fully complete.

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 all four parameters are generic anyOf object/null slots with no descriptions. The description compensates well by assigning meaning to three of the four: path_params carry route IDs, query carries filters/pagination, and headers carry required request headers. It does not clarify the `body` parameter, but for a GET this is a minor omission.

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 specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('credential'), and identifies the exact endpoint with a path parameter placeholder (`{id}`). This unambiguously distinguishes it from the plural list variant `get_r_company_credentials` and any mutation tools for the same resource.

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 explains how to place parameters ('route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of the collection-fetching sibling `get_r_company_credentials`. The singular-by-ID usage is implied by the endpoint and name, not stated in the text.

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