Get Current Company Assignments

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: returns a paginated JSON array, pagination controlled via page and per_page, response includes pagination metadata, and it specifies the exact API endpoint. These details go beyond annotations and help the agent understand 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 a single paragraph of 4-5 sentences. It is fairly concise, though the sentence about fetching 'specific records by identifier' is somewhat redundant with the first sentence. The endpoint information could be considered auxiliary. Overall, it is well-structured and not verbose.

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 covers the core purpose, required parameter, and pagination mechanism. However, it lacks details on the return structure beyond 'JSON array' and 'pagination metadata.' Given there is no output schema, more guidance on response fields or error handling would improve completeness. Annotations partially cover safety, so the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats that company_id is required and briefly mentions using page and per_page for pagination. The schema already explains page is 0-based with up to 400 items and per_page defaults to 100. The description's extra statement about 'response includes pagination metadata' adds marginal value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 returns 'all current Resource Planning Assignment data' for a company, aligning with the tool name and title. It mentions fetching 'specific Resource Planning records by its identifier,' which is slightly ambiguous but overall conveys the retrieval purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_company_assignments' by specifying 'current' and 'Resource Planning.'

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 usage guidance: it says to use this tool to fetch details by identifier. It does not specify when to use this over siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios where alternatives would be more appropriate. Given the large sibling list, the lack of explicit comparison is a gap.

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