Get Resource Planning Notification Profiles

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

The description adds useful context beyond annotations, including failure modes (401/403/404) and explicit read-only confirmation. However, it contradicts the input schema by saying company_id defaults when omitted even though the schema marks it as required, and the 'Returns a single JSON object' claim conflicts with pagination parameters. These internal inconsistencies reduce transparency despite the extra error-handling detail.

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 generally well-structured and front-loaded, covering purpose, usage, error behavior, and API reference in a compact form. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'Read-only' duplicates annotations, 'Required parameters' repeats schema), but overall it is efficient and organized.

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 purpose, usage, errors, and endpoint, but lacks a clear explanation of pagination behavior and return shape (single vs. list). The inconsistency about company_id default and required state also leaves gaps in understanding. For a read-only tool with annotations, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds little meaning beyond repeating company_id as required and offering a contradictory default note. It does not clarify limit or cursor parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Returns all of the Resource Planning Notification Profile data for the given company'), but is ambiguous about whether this returns a list or a single object. It says 'Returns all' yet also 'Returns a single JSON object,' and the 'Use this when you already know which... profile' suggests a specific profile but no profile identifier parameter exists. This muddles the core purpose.

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 a usage context ('Use this when you already know which resource planning notification profile you want and need its full field set') and mentions company_id default behavior, but it does not name alternatives or explain when not to use this tool. It gives some guidance but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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