get_r_company_custom_profile_id

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate a non-mutating retrieve operation via GET and explains where IDs, filters, pagination, and headers go, which is useful context. However, it does not mention authentication, error/not-found behavior, or response characteristics, so transparency is only partial.

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 with no filler; the primary action and endpoint are front-loaded. The parameter-routing sentence is compact but slightly telegraphic, packing three argument locations together without much syntactic relief.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what it retrieves, the endpoint, and where arguments go. It is incomplete because the body parameter is never addressed, authentication and error behavior are absent, and it never explicitly frames this as the single-item counterpart to get_r_company_custom_profile.

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?

The schema properties are generic additionalProperties containers with no descriptions, so the description's routing instructions are the only semantic signal and do add value. However, it does not name the required path key or supported filter/pagination fields, and it silently omits the body parameter, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 specific verb and resource ('Retrieve custom profile') and names the exact HTTP endpoint, so an agent can see this is the by-ID retrieval variant. It does not explicitly compare itself to the collection endpoint get_r_company_custom_profile, but the path's {id} and the instruction to put route IDs in path_params make the distinction reasonably clear.

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 focuses on how to distribute arguments across path_params, query, and headers, not on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_r_company_custom_profile or delete_d_company_custom_profile_id. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, so an agent must infer usage from the endpoint and the tool-name convention.

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