get_r_report_queries_get_assets_by_problem

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, yet it only discloses the HTTP method (implicitly read-only via 'GET') and the request structure. It says nothing about what the response contains, whether authentication is required, pagination behavior, or any side effects, leaving the agent to infer the tool's behavior from the endpoint name alone.

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 the second sentence is functional, but the opening is a malformed template concatenation ('Retrieve records Calls `GET ...`') that reads as an editing artifact. It front-loads the endpoint, which helps, but the broken syntax reduces clarity and polish.

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 generic HTTP-passthrough tool with an output schema present, the description covers the minimum invocation surface: endpoint, parameter roles, and request assembly. But it is incomplete in meaningful ways — it never explains what 'assets by problem' means, says nothing about the body parameter, and fails to distinguish this tool from the nearly identically named sibling in the same family.

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 all four parameters are generic `anyOf` objects, so the description must compensate — and it partially does by assigning roles: route IDs to path_params, filters and pagination to query, and request headers to headers. However, it stops there: no concrete filter names or route-ID examples are given, and the `body` parameter is never addressed.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a concrete resource via the endpoint path `GET /r/report_queries/get_assets_by_problem`, so an agent can identify what to call. However, the phrasing is garbled template text ('Retrieve records Calls GET ...'), and 'records' is vague about what this report actually returns. It also does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling `get_r_report_queries_get_assets_problem`.

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 description only explains how to assemble the request (path_params, query, headers) and never mentions the semantically similar sibling `get_r_report_queries_get_assets_problem` or any other report query tool, so an agent cannot decide between them.

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