get_r_report_queries_remediation_plan_include_company

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of safety disclosure. It does state the HTTP method GET and the word 'Retrieve', which signals a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, pagination bounds, or what data scoping behavior 'include_company' implies.

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 and front-loads the endpoint before explaining parameter placement. It is slightly awkward and repetitive ('Retrieve records Calls GET'), but every sentence earns its place and there is no padding.

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 an output schema exists and the endpoint is explicit, the description does not explain what the remediation plan report contains, when to use it versus sibling report queries, or what specific route IDs/filters are expected. For a tool with no annotations and a fully generic parameter schema, this leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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?

The schema is entirely generic with 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It usefully maps path_params to route IDs, query to filters and pagination, and headers to required request headers. It omits the `body` parameter, but this is likely acceptable for a GET operation.

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 explicitly names the operation as `GET /r/report_queries/remediation_plan_include_company` and says it retrieves records, so an agent can identify the specific endpoint. However, 'records' is generic and there is no contrast with very similar siblings such as get_r_report_queries_remediation_plan_include_company_days or get_r_report_queries_remediation_plan_by_company.

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 mechanical invocation guidance (route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers) but does not say when to choose this tool over any of the many report-query siblings. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool comparisons.

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