get_r_company_discovery_settings_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read operation by using 'Retrieve' and instructing a GET request, so the agent can infer no mutation. It does not disclose authentication needs, potential errors, or response characteristics, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and contains two sentences with no filler. Some wording is awkward ('Calls' is inserted mid-sentence), and the placeholder value of 'filters and pagination' is not immediately relevant to a single-ID GET, but overall it earns its place.

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?

Even with an output schema, the description is incomplete for a 4-object atomic 0%-coverage tool. It does not confirm which path parameter name is required or what query keys are actually accepted for filtering/pagination. An agent cannot confidently construct the correct path_params or query object from the generic object definitions.

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 by naming or illustrating the parameters. It only gives generic guidance ('route IDs', 'filters and pagination', 'request headers') without specifying the actual path parameter key, query field names, or accepted header values. This is insufficient for an agent to construct a valid call.

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' and the resource 'discovery setting', and includes the full endpoint path with ID placeholder, making the target clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling get_r_company_discovery_settings by noting that this is the single-item variant.

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 implies usage by telling the caller to put route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, and headers in headers. It does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternate discovery-setting tools, but the id suffix and endpoint make the intended scenario reasonably inferable.

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