get_r_report_queries_distinct_os

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Retrieve records' and names the HTTP method, implying a read operation, but it does not describe pagination behavior, required inputs, return shape, or any side effects. The endpoint name provides the only safety signal.

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 front-loaded with the endpoint, which is good. But the opening 'Retrieve records' adds little meaning beyond the name, and the phrasing is awkward ('Retrieve records Calls GET...'). The second sentence is useful but mostly restates the schema structure.

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?

For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 0% schema description coverage, and a huge sibling list, the description is too thin. It does not explain what distinct_os results are, when this endpoint is needed, which parameters are actually required, or how it relates to the many similar report_queries siblings.

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%, so the description partially compensates by explaining that path_params hold route IDs, query holds filters and pagination, and headers holds request headers. However, it gives no specific parameter names, formats, or requiredness, and says nothing about the body parameter.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('records' for GET /r/report_queries/distinct_os), but 'records' is vague and does not explain what 'distinct_os' represents beyond the endpoint name. It also fails to distinguish this from the many sibling distinct_* report tools, such as get_r_report_queries_distinct_platform or distinct_software.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The instruction to place parameters in path_params, query, and headers is invocation syntax, not usage context such as when distinct OS data is needed or how it differs from other distinct report queries.

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