get_r_report_queries_asset_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP method (GET) and that it accepts path params, query, and headers, but it does not disclose what the response contains, whether pagination is required, what filters are supported, or any rate limits or auth requirements. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action ('Retrieve asset stats') before the endpoint and parameter placement. It is efficient with no filler. However, the second sentence is a bit mechanical and could be more informative, but it earns its place by giving placement guidance.

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 tool has an output schema, the return value shape is covered elsewhere, but the description still lacks essential context: what 'asset stats' means, what filters are available, whether pagination is mandatory, and how this differs from the many sibling report query tools. The generic schema with 0% coverage and no annotations means the description is the only source of guidance, and it is too thin to fully support correct invocation.

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%, and the schema only defines generic containers (body, query, headers, path_params) with no property-level documentation. The description adds some meaning by saying route IDs go in path_params and filters/pagination go in query, but it does not name any specific parameters, filter keys, or pagination format. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate much more than it does.

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: 'Retrieve asset stats' and names the exact endpoint `GET /r/report_queries/asset_stats`. It distinguishes itself from siblings like `get_r_report_queries_assets` by focusing on 'asset stats', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling. The endpoint reference adds precision, but the description could more clearly state what 'asset stats' means (e.g., counts, aggregates) to fully separate it from other report query tools.

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 some usage guidance by telling the agent where to put route IDs, filters, pagination, and headers. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like `get_r_report_queries_assets` or `get_r_report_queries_asset_software`. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, so the agent must infer usage from the name and endpoint.

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