Fetch Active Support Pin

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing pagination behavior, return format (paginated JSON array), and required parameters. However, it does not fully explain the response structure (no output schema) and has a slight inconsistency between 'support pin' and 'Company Settings'.

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 concise and front-loaded, with each sentence serving a purpose. There is no wasted text, though some redundancy exists (e.g., pagination details mentioned twice).

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 no output schema, the description partially explains the response (paginated JSON array) but lacks details on the specific fields of a support pin or Company Settings. The inconsistency between terms may confuse the agent.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal new semantics. It reiterates required parameters and pagination controls but does not provide extra constraints or context beyond what the schema already contains.

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 clearly states the action ('Fetches active support pin for given company') and the resource, but introduces ambiguity by referring to 'Company Settings' instead of consistently describing the support pin resource.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_support_pin or other fetch tools). It only says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Company Settings by its identifier' without any exclusion criteria or comparative context.

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