get_r_report_queries_problems_info

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. It only says 'Retrieve records' and the HTTP method, but does not state whether any parameters are required, what the response format is, whether authentication is needed, or any side effects. Since it is a GET, it is likely read-only, but the description does not confirm that. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the HTTP call.

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 relatively short, with two sentences. The first sentence states the action and endpoint, the second explains where to put different parameter types. However, the second sentence is redundant with the schema property names (path_params, query, headers) and does not add detail. It is concise but lacks substance.

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 the complexity of the context (many sibling report queries with similar names), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what data the endpoint returns, what the output schema contains (though there is an output schema), or any constraints on the parameters. The description provides almost no information to help an agent decide to use this tool or construct a valid call.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only mentions 'route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers', which is a generic restatement of the parameter names. It does not explain what specific filters or pagination options exist, nor what route IDs mean in this context. The description adds no semantic value; an agent would have to guess what to put in each parameter.

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 names the specific endpoint, but the resource is vague: 'problems_info' does not clarify what problems or what info. The verb 'Retrieve' and the endpoint URL provide some specificity, but the description does not explain what this tool does beyond the endpoint name, which is a tautological restatement of the tool name. It does not distinguish it from the many other 'problems' sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling tools, such as get_r_report_queries_problems_summary or get_r_report_queries_problems_ssl_for_asset. There is no mention of what kind of query or filters would be appropriate, nor any conditions for use. The agent has no way to know if this tool is the right one for a given report query.

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