get_r_report_queries_cert_info_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the HTTP method (GET) implying read-only behavior, and mentions filters/pagination, but it does not address authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The phrase 'Provide route IDs' implies a required parameter, yet the schema marks all params optional—a minor inconsistency.

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 a single sentence that leads with the action and endpoint, then efficiently conveys parameter placement. It is clear and without extraneous content, though the sentence structure is slightly packed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description fails to clarify the meaning of 'cert info view,' when to prefer this over sibling tools, or whether path_params are truly required. The ambiguity about requiredness and lack of usage context leave an agent under-informed for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 does explain the purpose of path_params (route IDs), query (filters and pagination), and headers, giving meaningful semantics beyond the generic schema. Body is not mentioned, but it is likely unused for a GET, so this is acceptable.

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 the action 'Retrieve records' and specifies the exact endpoint, making the resource unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the large set of sibling report_queries tools, relying on the specific resource name to do so.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling report_queries tools. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives, leaving the selection entirely to the agent's interpretation.

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