get_r_report_queries_distinct_software

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that this is a GET/read operation with parameter placement. However, it omits auth expectations, pagination behavior, and any endpoint-specific behavior, and it instructs the agent to provide route IDs in path_params even though this endpoint has no path variables, which is misleading.

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 a single sentence with the endpoint front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, though the misleading 'route IDs' boilerplate weakens the value of that compactness.

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 the return shape, but with no annotations and an open-ended schema, the description is too thin for reliable selection and invocation. It lacks concrete query filter details, usage context versus sibling distinct_* tools, and any clarification that this endpoint takes no path IDs.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add some meaning by saying query holds filters/pagination and headers holds headers, but it omits body semantics entirely and gives an inaccurate path_params instruction for a URL with no route IDs. No concrete query parameter names or formats are provided.

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 names the HTTP method and exact endpoint, which identifies the resource as the distinct_software report query. It is clear enough to separate from most siblings, though 'Retrieve records' is generic and does not explicitly say the result is a list of distinct software values.

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 the many sibling report-query tools, such as get_r_report_queries_distinct_os or get_r_report_queries_asset_software. The agent must infer usage entirely from the endpoint name.

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