get_r_company_custom_domains

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It signals read-only behavior via 'Retrieve' but discloses nothing about authorization requirements, response behavior, side effects, or pagination specifics. The behavioral description is essentially limited to the one verb.

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 sentences and no wasted words, which is appropriately compact. However, the second sentence reads like generated plumbing, mixing vague 'route IDs' directives with param placement, and it is not polished enough to be considered genuinely high-quality structure.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the definition still lacks clear parameter content in both schema and description. With four free-form parameters and zero schema coverage, an agent cannot confidently build the route or query without external information.

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 the parameters are just generic empty or additionalProperties objects. The description adds some meaning by suggesting that query holds filters/pagination and headers holds required request headers, but it fails to explain actual keys, formats, or the body parameter, and the phrase 'route IDs in path_params' is vague and not grounded in the shown endpoint.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource, 'Retrieve custom domains', and identifies the exact endpoint via GET /r/company/custom_domains. It is evidently a list/retrieval tool for custom domains, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_r_company_custom_domains_id or the creating post_w_company_custom_domain.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The only instruction is a generic mapping of path_params, query, and headers, which describes how to form a request rather than when to choose this tool.

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