post_w_company_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, scan scope, asynchronous behavior, or response characteristics. It only describes request construction, which is transport mechanics rather than tool 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?

Three short sentences, endpoint front-loaded, with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the opening phrase is awkward and could have been clearer.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema parameter documentation. It does not explain what a 'company scan' is, what inputs are valid, or what the agent should expect behaviorally. The generic HTTP advice could apply to almost any endpoint.

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. It adds some useful meaning by indicating that path_params carry route IDs, query carries filters/pagination, headers carry required headers, and body carries the payload. However, it does not specify parameter names, formats, or which route IDs apply, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 phrase 'Scan Company Calls' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and endpoint, not a clear statement of what the tool does. It identifies the HTTP route but does not explain the operation's effect or resource semantics, and it does not distinguish this from siblings like post_w_company_external_scan.

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 any of the many related company-scan tools. It only explains where to place HTTP components, not the conditions or scenarios that would select this tool.

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