get_r_report_queries_distinct_discovered_protocols

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a GET/retrieve operation and mentions pagination, but it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, required headers, or what the response contains. This is thin for an unannotated tool.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the endpoint and verb. It is efficient, though slightly awkward with 'Retrieve records Calls'.

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?

It covers the generic request-shape pattern and the output schema handles return values, but the 0% schema coverage means an agent still lacks the specific parameter names and filter keys needed to invoke this correctly. The absence of usage guidance against similar distinct_* siblings is also a gap.

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 adds useful meaning by mapping path_params to route IDs, query to filters/pagination, and headers to required request headers. However, it does not name concrete parameter keys, valid route IDs, or clarify what the 'body' parameter is for.

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 a clear action ('Retrieve records') and names the exact endpoint it calls, so an agent knows it is a read operation for distinct discovered protocols. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the many sibling get_r_report_queries_distinct_* 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_r_report_queries_distinct_os or get_r_report_queries_distinct_tags. The description only gives request-construction hints, not usage context or exclusions.

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