get_r_report_queries_companies_by_problem_group

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It reveals the HTTP method (GET) and where parameters go, but does not clearly state read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The agent is left to infer safety from the GET method without explicit confirmation.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The action and endpoint are stated first, followed by parameter placement. It could be slightly more informative, but it is efficiently structured.

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?

This tool is an obscure report query among ~200 siblingswif. The description does not explain the resource's purpose, the meaning of 'problem group', or how to construct path_params. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but an agent cannot confidently select this tool without further context.

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?

The description adds some meaning to parameters by mapping path_params to route IDs, query to filters/pagination, and headers to request headers. However, it omits the body parameter entirely and provides no specifics on which filters or headers are required. Schema coverage is 0%, so this partial guidance helps but does not fully compensate.

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 action ('Retrieve records') and names the exact endpoint. However, it does not explain what 'companies_by_problem_group' semantically means or differentiate it from nearly identical siblings like get_r_report_queries_companies_by_problem_group_suppressed. The agent can tell this is a GET for a specific resource, but not what makes it distinct.

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 alternatives. The description only gives the HTTP call details and parameter placement. There is no mention of when this report query is appropriate, what scenario it serves, or which sibling tool might be preferred instead.

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