get_r_company_edr

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. 'Retrieve' and `GET` clearly signal a read-only operation with no destructive side effects. However, it does not mention required authentication, whether results are paginated by default, response shape, or any other behavioral traits beyond the HTTP method and parameter placement.

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 the endpoint front-loaded and parameter placement following. Every sentence contributes, though 'route IDs' is somewhat ambiguous for an endpoint with no visible path variable, and 'edr' is not expanded.

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?

With an output schema present and only four generic HTTP-wrapper parameters, the description is minimally viable: it gives the method, path, and parameter roles. But it doesn't clarify that this is the list/collection variant, fails to enumerate concrete query or header options, and the 'route IDs' instruction seems inapplicable to the given path, leaving request construction partially underspecified.

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 for the bare parameter schema. It adds useful meaning by mapping path_params to route IDs, query to filters/pagination, and headers to required request headers. However, it does not name specific filter keys, pagination format, or which headers may be required, and it ignores the 'body' parameter entirely.

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 gives a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a resource ('edr'), and the exact HTTP call (`GET /r/company/edr`). It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this collection endpoint from its sibling get_r_company_edr_id, so sibling differentiation is only implicit via the path.

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 explains how to construct the request ('route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_r_company_edr_id or other read endpoints. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection context.

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