get_r_report_queries_get_remediation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a GET request and where parameters go, but it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what kind of data the records contain. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 sentences with no filler, and the endpoint is front-loaded. It is slightly awkward ('Retrieve records Calls...') and the word 'records' is generic, but the description is compact and every sentence adds operational information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required, but this tool has no annotations and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not specify which route IDs are valid, which filters/pagination parameters are supported, what headers are required, or how this differs from closely named siblings like get_r_report_queries_remediate_records.

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 description adds roles to the generic object parameters: path_params for route IDs, query for filters/pagination, and headers for required headers. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not enumerate the actual route ID, filter, or pagination keys, so an agent still lacks concrete parameter syntax.

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 identifies a specific HTTP endpoint and says it retrieves records, so it is more than a tautology. However, 'records' is vague and it does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling get_r_report_queries_* retrieval tools, leaving the resource scope unclear.

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 is given about when to choose this tool over sibling report-query tools, and no exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. The only usage hints are parameter-placement instructions, which do not help with tool selection.

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