get_r_report_queries_remediation_plan_by_company

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal the HTTP method (GET) and read semantics, and it warns that required request headers may need to be provided. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, pagination limits, or failure behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the endpoint and call type. The minor grammar issue ('Retrieve records Calls') and redundant path repetition are small blemishes on an otherwise efficient two-sentence definition.

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?

While the output schema covers return values, the description is too thin for reliable selection and invocation. It omits the meaning of the endpoint, required route parameters, and any usage conditions, which matters given the large set of closely related report-query siblings.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only offers generic object slots, so the description's mapping of route IDs to path_params and filters/pagination to query adds meaningful guidance. Still, it does not specify actual parameter names, which route IDs are required, or valid filter keys.

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') and resource ('remediation_plan_by_company' endpoint), so an agent can recognize this as a read/list operation. However, it does not explain what a remediation plan by company is or explicitly differentiate it from the many similar remediation-plan/report-query siblings.

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 only explains where to place parameters (path_params, query, headers) and never says when to use this tool instead of alternatives. With siblings like get_r_report_queries_remediation_plan_asset_details and get_r_report_queries_remediation_plan_include_company, an agent receives no selection criteria.

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