get_r_company_edr_id

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

The GET method and 'Retrieve' verb make it clear this is a read-only operation with no mutation side effects. It also adds that query supports filters and pagination. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior, pagination defaults, or response characteristics beyond what the output schema already provides.

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 definition is a single concise sentence with the action and endpoint front-loaded, followed by parameter placement guidance. There is no filler or repetition. The capitalized 'Calls' is slightly awkward and the body parameter is ignored, but these are minor structural blemishes.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described, and the endpoint plus parameter placement are sufficient to make a basic call. However, the tool has zero annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no sibling differentiation, leaving gaps around exact parameter keys, auth context, and selection criteria. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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%, and the description partially compensates by mapping the loose schema properties to HTTP locations: path_params for route IDs, query for filters/pagination, and headers for request headers. The path parameter key can be inferred as 'id' from the route template, but the description does not enumerate specific filter names, query keys, or required header names.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('edr'), and includes the exact GET endpoint `/r/company/edr/{id}`. The `_id` suffix and route pattern differentiate it from sibling `get_r_company_edr`, though it never explicitly names that alternative. The wording is slightly awkward ('Retrieve edr Calls') and does not define what 'edr' is, but the intent is 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 gives parameter-placement advice ('Provide route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query...') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the related list endpoint `get_r_company_edr`, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so an agent cannot decide between sibling tools from the description alone.

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