get_r_report_queries_distinct_platform

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'retrieve records' and the HTTP call, but does not disclose whether this is read-only (though GET implies it), any required authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the endpoint itself.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action and endpoint. The phrasing 'Retrieve records Calls ...' is grammatically awkward, but the information is compact and the key instruction (endpoint) appears early. While not elegantly structured, it avoids verbosity and gets the core message across.

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 four optional parameters, no annotations, and many closely related siblings, the description is far too thin. It provides no indication of the result's shape or how to interpret 'distinct platforms,' and does not help the agent understand when this endpoint is appropriate. Even with an output schema present, the description fails to contextualize the tool's role.

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 must compensate. It does clarify that path_params hold route IDs, query holds filters and pagination, and headers holds required request headers, which adds some meaning. However, it does not specify what route IDs are, what filters are valid, or how pagination is passed, and it omits the body parameter entirely. Partial value but insufficient for full comprehension.

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 the specific endpoint, and the name makes clear it retrieves distinct platforms. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'distinct platform' means beyond the endpoint, and it distinguishes from sibling tools only via the endpoint name, not an explicit statement. Still, an agent can infer the purpose from the endpoint and resource name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. the many sibling get_r_report_queries_distinct_* tools. The description only explains how to structure the request (path_params, query, headers) but never states what scenarios warrant this specific query over others. Without exclusions or alternatives, the agent has no basis to select it.

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