get_r_report_queries_remediation_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method (GET) implicitly but fails to describe response format, error handling, required authentication, or any side effects. It does not contradict annotations since none exist, but it is insufficient.

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, but it repeats the endpoint URL which is already in the tool name, and the parameter placement advice is generic. It is not front-loaded with the most important semantic information; it is essentially a template with placeholders.

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 complexity of the sibling set (many remediation report tools) and the generic schema, the description lacks essential details about required vs optional parameters, expected query parameters, and output structure. Even though an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the endpoint returns, making it incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

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 objects with no documentation. The description only tells the agent to put route IDs in path_params, filters in query, and headers in headers, but does not specify what each parameter should contain or the exact structure required. This is a significant gap.

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 it retrieves records and calls a specific endpoint, but it does not explain what 'remediation_companies' represents or what data it returns. Compared to many sibling report queries, the purpose is vague and could be confused with similar remediation-related tools.

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?

It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_r_report_queries_remediation_plan_by_company or get_r_report_queries_remediate_records_companies. The generic advice about placing parameters is not specific to this tool.

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