get_r_report_queries_problems_remediations_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only GET operation and mentions 'any required request headers', but does not state authentication needs, error behavior, pagination limits, or what happens with missing parameters. This is minimal behavioral context for an unannotated tool.

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 front-loads the purpose, then gives the endpoint, then maps parameter containers to their roles. It is compact and mostly efficient, though 'Retrieve records Calls GET...' is slightly awkward and could be smoothed.

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 schema is generic (open objects with additionalProperties), so the description's high-level parameter hints are not enough for correct invocation. It does not specify which route IDs are valid, which filter and pagination keys are accepted, or which headers are required. An output schema exists, so return format is covered, but the request construction remains underspecified.

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 must compensate, and it does add role-level meaning: path_params for route IDs, query for filters/pagination, headers for required request headers. However, it never names specific keys, formats, or examples, so an agent cannot construct a precise request from this text alone.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Retrieve records' followed by the exact endpoint `GET /r/report_queries/problems_remediations_summary`. This makes the target operation identifiable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from closely named siblings like get_r_report_queries_problems_summary, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives invocation mechanics ('Provide route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query') but no guidance on when this tool should be chosen over alternatives. With many similar report-query siblings, the absence of usage context or exclusions leaves 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.