Get company access for a user (admin)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board'), which are minimal additions. It does not explain the meaning of 'company access' or what the response contains, leaving behavioral gaps beyond what annotations cover.

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, consisting of two short sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds operational context (HTTP method and auth class). No redundant information is present.

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 the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks explanation of what 'company access' entails, the role of the admin authorization, and parameter details. For a simple read tool with good structured metadata, the description is minimally sufficient.

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%. The description does not explain the 'userId' parameter beyond its presence in the phrase 'user (admin)'. No format, constraints, or usage hints are given, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.

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 'Get company access for a user (admin)', using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('company access'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pc_get_admin_users (which retrieves users) and pc_put_admin_users_by_user_id_company_access (which modifies access).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies this tool is for retrieving company access for a user, but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The auth class 'board' suggests access control but does not clarify when to choose this over admin user tools.

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