get_r_company_scheduler

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the HTTP method (GET) and parameter placement (path, query, headers), but does not disclose any behavioral details like response structure, error handling, authentication requirements, or side effects. Since it's a GET, it's likely read-only, but the description does not explicitly confirm that or add other behavioral context.

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 (two sentences), but it is somewhat terse and mixes guidance with the API call details. It front-loads the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource, but then jumps to parameter placement. It could be more structured with clear sentences for each parameter group.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 generic object parameters) and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the scheduler is, what data it returns, what filters are supported, or how to validate the response. With an output schema present, it could be less explanatory about return values, but the overall context is still thin.

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. However, it only says 'Provide route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers.' This gives high-level guidance but no specific parameter names, types, or meaning. It doesn't detail what the 'route IDs' are, what filters are available, or what format is expected.

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 says 'Retrieve scheduler' and mentions the HTTP call, but the resource is ambiguous ('scheduler' without further context). It distinguishes it from siblings by having 'get_r_company_scheduler' which is unique among the siblings (no other 'scheduler' get except the id variant). However, it doesn't specify what a 'scheduler' is or its meaning in the company context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It doesn't mention the id-specific variant get_r_company_scheduler_id or when to use that instead. No exclusions or alternative references.

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