get_r_company_discovery_settings

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral context. It states it calls a GET endpoint (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose any pagination limits, potential for large datasets, or authentication requirements. It's a read operation, but the description doesn't explicitly say it is non-destructive or safe to invoke.

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 short and front-loads the main action and endpoint. It wastes no words, achieving a reasonable balance of brevity, though it lacks essential details.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 generic parameters with no schema descriptions) and the existence of an output schema, the description doesn't provide enough specifics to construct a correct call. It doesn't explain the resource's semantics or how to properly populate path_params and query, which is a significant gap.

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's parameter descriptions are empty (0% coverage), so the description should compensate. It mentions 'route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers', but doesn't explain what specific route IDs are needed, what filters are valid, or what headers are required. An agent would be guessing about the query structure.

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 the verb 'Retrieve' with a specific resource 'discovery settings' and includes the endpoint path. However, it doesn't clarify what discovery settings are or what they contain, which is vague for a domain-specific resource. It also doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'get_r_company_discovery_settings_id', which retrieves a single resource by ID, so the scope difference is unclear.

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 mentions providing route IDs, filters, pagination, and headers, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_r_company_discovery_settings_id' (single vs. list). It doesn't specify what filters are available, making it hard for an agent to know how to configure the query.

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