get_r_company_pii_scan_settings

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the HTTP method (GET) and the general request structure, which implies a read-only operation and no side effects. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or the possibility of returned paginated data, leaving parts of the behavior opaque.

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 fill example. The key purpose and endpoint are front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is immediate. Only slight awkwardness in the second sentence ('Calls `GET ...`' after 'Retrieve') but overall concise.

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 description does not explain what 'pii scan settings' is, what route IDs refer to, or what query filters/pagination parameters look like. Since the parameter objects are empty and there are no parameter descriptions, this lack of specificity means the agent must guess environment-specific details. The output schema may describe return values, but a for a generic endpoint of this type the description should offer more examples or expected structure.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the blank schema. It does so by explaining that path_params should contain route IDs, query holds filters and pagination, and headers holds required request headers. This gives meaning to the empty schema, though it is still generic and lacks details about exact keys or formats.

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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'pii scan settings', and explicitly lists the endpoint `/r/company/pii_scan_settings`. The mention of 'filters and pagination' implies a list operation, making it distinct from the sibling `get_r_company_pii_scan_settings_id` which is almost certainly for a single record.

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 provides instructions for placing parameter input (route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers) but does not state when to use this tool over its sibling-by-ID variant or any other alternative. It gives context for what this tool expectsally, but not selection criteria.

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