get_r_report_queries_ports_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Retrieve records' and the HTTP method. It does not disclose authentication requirements, potential side effects, pagination behavior, error conditions, or any other operational traits beyond being a GET request.

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 mostly efficient, with the endpoint front-loaded and parameter placement summarized in a single follow-up sentence. Minor grammar awkwardness ('Retrieve records Calls...') and the vague phrase 'any required request headers' prevent a perfect score.

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 simple GET wrapper, the description provides the essential call mechanics but omits enough detail about filters, route IDs, and headers to be fully self-sufficient. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but selection guidance and concrete parameter semantics remain gaps.

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 input schema is completely generic with 0% description coverage, so the description's mapping of route IDs to path_params, filters/pagination to query, and headers to headers adds useful meaning. However, it stops at coarse grouping and never names the actual route ID keys, filter fields, or header names an agent would need to construct a correct call.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names the exact endpoint (`GET /r/report_queries/ports_count`), which clearly identifies the resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like `get_r_report_queries_ports_view`, but the endpoint gives enough specificity for an agent to distinguish it.

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 explains where to place path, query, and header parameters, but it gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over the many related report-query siblings. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or alternatives, so the agent must infer selection context from the name alone.

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