get_r_report_queries_companies_by_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves records and calls a GET endpoint, which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, required authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves the agent to infer the behavior from the endpoint name and schema.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action and endpoint. The sentence is efficient and contains no filler. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices meaningful guidance, and the generic parameter-mapping instruction is repeated boilerplate that could be omitted if the schema were richer.

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 has no annotations, no parameter documentation, and a generic schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the meaning of 'companies_by_application', the expected path_params, the query filter options, or the response structure. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still leaves critical invocation details unspecified.

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 schema parameters are generic containers (body, query, headers, path_params) with no property-level documentation. The description adds only a generic mapping: route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, request headers in headers. It does not specify which route IDs are valid, what filters are supported, or what headers are required, so the agent cannot determine parameter values without external knowledge.

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 records') and the exact endpoint ('GET /r/report_queries/companies_by_application'), which clearly identifies the resource. However, it does not explain what 'companies by application' means or what the records represent, and it does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_r_report_queries_companies_by_application_suppressed, which is nearly identical in name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the suppressed variant or any other related report query tool, nor does it state any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only usage hint is the generic instruction to put route IDs in path_params, filters in query, and headers in headers, which applies to all tools in this family.

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