get_r_report_queries_assets_by_application

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the HTTP method (implied by the route) and 'Retrieve records', which is already evident. It does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination limits, or that this is a read-only operation, leaving the safety profile unknown.

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 short and front-loaded, but the opening phrase 'Retrieve records' is nearly redundant with the explicit route call. It is concise but not particularly informative, and the structure does not prioritize the few useful details (parameter placement) over the generic restatement.

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 large sibling context and the total absence of parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. An agent would need to guess the query parameter names for filters/pagination and understand what 'route IDs' refers to. The output schema covers return values, but request construction remains underdetermined.

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 must compensate. It vaguely says to put 'route IDs' in path_params and 'filters and pagination' in query, but it does not name any actual query parameters, explain what route IDs mean, or specify required vs optional fields. This is insufficient for constructing a valid request without external knowledge.

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 says 'Retrieve records' and names the endpoint, which gives a verb and resource, but it does not explain what 'assets_by_application' means or what the returned records represent. It fails to differentiate from similar siblings like get_r_report_queries_assets or get_r_report_queries_companies_by_application, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the tool name.

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 placement guidance ('route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query'), but no context for when to choose this tool over alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives, so an agent cannot determine when this is the correct endpoint among dozens of report queries.

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