get_r_report_queries_distinct_asset_name

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

Annotations are completely absent, so the description carries the full burden. It gives no indication of what the tool returns, whether it is purely read-only (only inferable from the get_r_ prefix), or what effect pagination/filtering actually has. The one behavioral hint is that query parameters support 'filters and pagination', but that is minimal and does not carry the disclosure burden.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the parameter-placement instruction is dense. Minor redundancy exists since 'Retrieve records' and the GET URL both restate the name, but overall the description is compact and scannable.

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 output schema covers return values, but the critical unknown is what parameters this endpoint accepts: no filter names, no pagination format, no route ID semantics. For a tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call beyond filling generic envelopes; the description covers transport mechanics but not the semantics that matter.

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 description coverage is 0%, and every parameter is an open anyOf object, so the description's guidance on where to put route IDs (path_params), filters/pagination (query), and headers (headers) does add real meaning. However, it stops there: it never names the actual filter or pagination parameters, what the route IDs refer to, or how headers are used given 0% schema coverage, so the compensation is only partial.

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 says 'Retrieve records' and names the endpoint GET /r/report_queries/distinct_asset_name, which identifies the resource at a basic level. However, it essentially restates the tool name via the URL and never explains what 'distinct asset name' records are, so it does little to differentiate this from the ~10 sibling distinct_* tools (distinct_os, distinct_tags, distinct_asset_ip, etc.).

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 when-to-use guidance exists. The instruction to place route IDs in path_params and filters in query is parameter placement guidance, not usage routing. Given the large sibling family of report_queries_distinct_* tools, an agent gets no help choosing this one over alternatives.

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