get_r_report_queries_problem_group_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method (GET) and where to place parameters, but it does not describe the return format, error behavior, side effects, or any constraints. This is insufficient for a tool without annotation support.

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 concise but poorly structured: 'Retrieve records Calls GET ...' is grammatically awkward and not front-loaded with the most important information. It could be clearer and better organized, though it is brief.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema and is one of many similar report queries, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the nature of the summary, when to use it, or what the response contains. An agent would struggle to decide if this is the right tool without more context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does clarify that path_params contain route IDs, query holds filters and pagination, and headers are for request headers—this is useful. However, it does not explain the specific parameters, their types, or their meaning, so the added value is limited to structural guidance.

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 says 'Retrieve records' and specifies the endpoint, which gives a general idea that it fetches data. However, it does not clarify what a 'problem group summary' is or what kind of records are returned, so the purpose is only vaguely conveyed and does not distinguish it from other report query tools.

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 queries (e.g., problems_summary, problems_summary_global). The description only explains how to call the endpoint without any context about the use case or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess.

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