Get All Resource Planning Tag For A Company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, requires company_id, and specifies the API endpoint. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the return format and pagination 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 relatively concise, with a clear sequence: action, purpose, usage, pagination, required parameters, and API reference. However, the inclusion of the misplaced sentence about 'specific record' adds unnecessary confusion and slightly detracts from conciseness.

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?

The description explains pagination and required parameters, which is good for a list tool without an output schema. However, it does not describe the fields of the returned Resource Planning records, nor does it provide guidance on how to interpret pagination metadata or handle pagination loops. The misleading 'specific record' sentence further reduces completeness.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters. The description reiterates required company_id and mentions pagination parameters, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves all Resource Planning Tags for a Company, but includes a misleading sentence about fetching 'full details of a specific Resource Planning records by its identifier,' which contradicts the all-tags purpose and reduces clarity. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_all_resource_planning_tag_for_a_group or get_a_single_resource_planning_tag.

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 provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions pagination parameters (page, per_page) but does not specify when not to use it or suggest alternatives for filtering by user or workspace. The presence of sibling tools for groups and single tags is not addressed.

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