get_r_report_queries_distinct_asset_ip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only reveals that this is a GET/retrieve operation and vaguely mentions filters, pagination, and headers. It does not disclose authentication/header requirements, pagination defaults, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits, so the agent is left guessing beyond the obvious read-only nature.

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, front-loads the action and endpoint, and avoids redundancy. The awkward phrasing 'Retrieve records Calls' is a minor readability flaw, but every sentence earns its place.

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, the description is incomplete for a tool with zero annotations and a generic schema: it does not explain what distinct asset IPs are, which query filters are supported, what headers are required, or why path_params are mentioned for a URL without placeholders. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly with confidence.

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, and it does assign roles to path_params, query, and headers. However, the instruction to provide route IDs in path_params is suspect because the stated URL contains no path parameters, and it never names actual query filters or required headers. Some meaning is added, but part of it may be misleading.

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 action ('Retrieve records') and names the exact HTTP endpoint (`GET /r/report_queries/distinct_asset_ip`), so the tool's resource is identifiable. It is not a tautology, and the route name distinguishes it from sibling tools, though it lacks a plain-language statement that it returns distinct asset IPs.

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 gives mechanical invocation guidance: route IDs go in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers. However, it never says when to choose this tool over the many similar get_r_report_queries_distinct_* siblings, and 'when not to use' is absent; usage context is only implied by the endpoint name.

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