get_r_report_queries_distinct_agents_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates it's a GET request and where to place parameters, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or the nature of the response. It does not contradict annotations (there are none), but it is minimally informative about side effects or prerequisites.

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, which is concise, but it includes a redundant phrase 'Calls GET /r/report_queries/distinct_agents_name' followed by instructions that repeat the routing concept. More importantly, it instructs to provide route IDs in path_params, yet the endpoint has no path parameters, making the guidance potentially misleading. The structure is acceptable but not tightly efficient.

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 (which covers return format), the description lacks essential contextual information such as the exact resource being retrieved, when to use it, and any behavioral caveats. Given the vast number of sibling tools, this description does not sufficiently differentiate its purpose or usage, leaving an agent without enough context to confidently select and invoke it 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?

The input schema provides no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by mapping path_params to 'route IDs', query to 'filters and pagination', and headers to 'required request headers'. This gives a basic understanding of parameter roles, though it lacks specifics on query parameter names or formats. It provides some value beyond the generic schema.

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 the specific endpoint, which conveys it's a GET operation on a report query resource. However, it does not explicitly state what the records represent (i.e., distinct agent names), relying on the tool name to imply the resource. This is clear enough to distinguish from many siblings but lacks explicit domain meaning.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar 'distinct_*' siblings or other report query tools. It only tells how to structure the call, not the conditions that would select this tool. An agent would have to infer usage from the endpoint name alone, which is not sufficient.

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