get_r_report_queries_assets_by_application_suppressed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only GET operation by saying "Retrieve records" and "Calls GET", but it does not state what the response contains, whether the 'suppressed' data is hidden by default, what filters/pagination options exist, or any auth/rate-limit requirements. It also vaguely instructs to "Provide route IDs in path_params" without confirming what those IDs are, which could mislead.

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 (two sentences) and not verbose, but it front-loads the endpoint rather than an understandable purpose. It is concise yet under-specified; the compactness does not compensate for the lack of useful semantics.

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 (so return values are defined), the description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not clarify what "assets_by_application_suppressed" returns, what route IDs are required, what filters or pagination parameters are valid, or what headers are required. With 0% schema coverage and several near-identical siblings, this level of detail is inadequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully maps the generic parameters: route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, headers in headers. However, it provides no concrete parameter names, types, or allowed values, and it does not mention the optional body parameter at all. This is minimal semantic help, insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema documentation.

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 gives the exact endpoint path, which provides a verb and resource. However, it does not explain what the records represent or what "suppressed" means, and it does not differentiate from the very similar sibling get_r_report_queries_assets_by_application (without suppressed). The purpose is technically clear but semantically vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar siblings like get_r_report_queries_assets_by_application or get_r_report_queries_companies_by_application_suppressed. The description only instructs how to place parameters, not when to select this tool or what conditions favor it. That is a lack of usage guidance, not misleading information.

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