get_r_report_queries_compliance_check_asset_count

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states the call is a GET and that it retrieves records, implying a read-only operation, but it doesn't mention required authentication, potential output size, pagination behavior, or any side effects. It adds no behavioral context beyond what the endpoint name already implies.

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 has no fluff, but the phrasing 'Retrieve records Calls GET...' is grammatically awkward and the redundant 'Retrieve'/'Calls' adds no value. It is compact but not elegantly 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?

The description is insufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool among the ~180 sibling tools. It doesn't explain the meaning of the endpoint, what the asset count corresponds to, or how it differs from other report_queries endpoints. An output schema exists, which reduces the need to document return format, but the tool's domain purpose is still missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by telling the agent that path_params carries route IDs, query carries filters and pagination, and headers carries required request headers. However, it doesn't name any actual query parameters or headers, so the agent still lacks concrete guidance for constructing a valid call.

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 the verb 'Retrieve' and names the exact endpoint, so an agent can tell it's a GET for that path. However, it only says 'records' and doesn't explain what a compliance check asset count is or what kind of data is returned, leaving the purpose vague compared to the many similarly named report query tools.

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 over the many sibling get_r_report_queries_* or get_report_queries_* tools. The only instruction is how to distribute inputs across parameters, not when this endpoint is appropriate.

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