get_r_report_queries_os_pending_patches_companies

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 says 'Retrieve records' and mentions filters/pagination in query, which implies read-only behavior but does not disclose any side effects, payload shape, or operational details like rate limits or required authentication. The absence of annotation coverage makes this sparse.

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 that efficiently states the endpoint and then provides brief parameter guidance. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the resource, avoiding unnecessary elaboration. It could include more detail without becoming verbose, but as is, it is concise and to the point.

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 description is incomplete for a tool with no annotations and a generic schema that doesn't explain what the record contains. It fails to describe what the returned data represents or why an agent would choose this report query over the many similar report queries. The presence of an output schema may help, but the description does not bridge the gap between the endpoint name and its practical use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by assigning roles: path_params for route IDs, query for filters and pagination, headers for request headers, and body (implicitly unused). However, it lacks specifics about the exact required keys or value formats, so it only gives a high-level understanding rather than fully defining parameter semantics.

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 specific verb (GET) and a resource endpoint (`/r/report_queries/os_pending_patches_companies`), and the name itself conveys a report about OS pending patches per company. It is clear that this retrieves records from that endpoint, though it doesn't explain the actual content of those records. The verb and resource are specific enough to distinguish it from siblings.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other `get_r_report_queries_*` siblings. It only instructs how to structure the call (path params, query, headers) but does not state which scenarios warrant this particular report query or when to prefer alternatives.

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