get_r_company_pii_scan_settings_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the HTTP method (GET) and that query contains filters/pagination, but it does not disclose response shape, error behavior, authentication needs, or any side effects. The description is minimal for a read operation that has a non-trivial URL structure.

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 terse sentences with no wasted words. The endpoint is front-loaded and the parameter placement instructions are compact and clear.

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 covers the basic call pattern (endpoint, where to put parameters) and an output schema exists, so return values are documented. It omits any distinction from the sibling collection tool and does not clarify whether the `body` field should be used despite the schema allowing it. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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 partially compensates by stating that `path_params` holds route IDs, `query` holds filters/pagination, and `headers` holds request headers. However, it does not specify the exact format of the ID or which filters/pagination parameters are supported, leaving ambiguity.

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 'pii scan setting', and echoes the endpoint `GET /r/company/pii_scan_settings/{id}`. It is clear that this tool fetches a single setting by ID, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling `get_r_company_pii_scan_settings` list tool.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. It only instructs where to place path_params, query, and headers without mentioning alternatives or exclusions. The description does not say 'use this for a specific setting by ID' as opposed to the collection endpoint.

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