get_r_report_queries_asset_software

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does imply read-only behavior by saying 'Retrieve records' and naming a GET endpoint, but it does not disclose pagination limits, required authentication headers, error behavior, rate limits, or whether the result set is affected by any default scope. This is too little disclosure for an un-annotated tool.

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 text is short, but 'Retrieve records' and then 'Calls GET /r/report_queries/asset_software' are two fragments awkwardly jammed without a proper connecting phrase. The parameter guidance is crammed into one comma-separated sentence; a small list would be clearer. It is under-structured rather than concise.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the tool is an API wrapper with fully generic body/query/headers/path_params slots. The description gives no context on what the report represents, which path_params are valid, how filters are expressed, or how authentication is supplied. Given the less than 0% parameter schema coverage and many siblings, this is not sufficient for an agent to call it confidently.

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%, so the description's mapping of path_params, query, and headers is genuinely useful — it clarifies where each kind of input goes. But it stops at generic labels: it does not list which route IDs exist, what filters are available, what pagination syntax to use, or which headers are required. It provides partial compensation for the empty schema, not enough to call the parameters reliably.

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 names a specific resource and verb ('Retrieve records' and the GET route /r/report_queries/asset_software), so it is not purely tautological. However, it does not say what 'asset_software' record actually contains or how this differs from sibling tools like get_r_report_queries_assets or get_r_report_queries_asset_stats, leaving the purpose only vaguely inferable from the route path.

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 gives parameter-placement hints ('route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers'), but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, what filters are legal, or when a route ID is needed. It never names a sibling or an exclusive condition, so an agent cannot decide between this and the many other report-query tools.

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