get_r_report_queries_compliance_asset_info

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 conveys a safe read operation via 'Retrieve' and GET, but adds no context about authentication, pagination behavior, response format, or any side effects.

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 with no filler and front-loads the retrieval purpose. Minor grammatical awkwardness ('Retrieve records Calls') slightly harms structure but not overall efficiency.

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?

While an output schema exists, invocation details are underspecified: required route IDs and query filter names are unknown, and the schema is entirely generic. With no annotations and no examples, an agent would likely struggle to call this correctly.

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 does add meaning by mapping path_params to route IDs, query to filters/pagination, and headers to request headers. However, it does not enumerate the actual route IDs or filter keys, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve records') and identifies the exact HTTP resource via the GET endpoint. However, it does not differentiate this compliance_asset_info report query from the many other compliance-related report query siblings.

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 choose this tool over alternatives, and no exclusions or routing conditions are provided. The description only gives mechanical parameter placement advice, not usage context.

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