get_r_company_custom_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Retrieve' implying a read operation, but provides no details on pagination behavior, response structure, error handling, or side effects. It does not disclose any limitations or assumptions. Since it's a GET, it's likely safe, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the HTTP method and path, then provides parameter placement guidance. It is concise and avoids redundancy, earning high marks for efficiency.

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 retrieval endpoint with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should offer substantial guidance. It tells the agent where to put parameters but not what specific parameters are available (e.g., field names for filters, pagination keys) or what the response contains (though output schema exists). Given the number of siblings and the generic resource name, this is insufficient for correct invocation without further exploration.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does offer some semantic mapping (path_params for IDs, query for filters/pagination, headers for request headers), but it does not describe any specific parameter names, formats, or required keys. The 'body' parameter is not addressed at all, leaving a gap in understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve custom profile') and gives the exact API path, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_r_company_custom_profile_id (which likely retrieves a single record). It is specific enough to identify the resource and verb, though it could clarify what a 'custom profile' actually represents.

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 only explains where parameters go (path_params for route IDs, query for filters/pagination, headers for request headers) but does not specify when this tool should be used instead of alternatives. There is no mention of selecting between list and ID-based endpoints or any exclusions. Minimal guidance on usage context.

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