get_r_report_queries_problems_summary_global

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 discloses that this is a GET (read-only) operation and that it retrieves records, but it does not mention pagination behavior, response format, required authentication, or any side effects. For a read operation with no annotations, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action ('Retrieve records') and endpoint. The second sentence maps parameters to locations. There is no filler, but the phrasing 'Retrieve records Calls GET...' is slightly awkward. Overall it is concise and structured acceptably.

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 tool has no annotations, no parameter documentation, and a generic schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It does not explain what the returned data represents, what route IDs are valid, what filters/pagination parameters exist, or what headers are required. The output schema exists but the input side remains largely unspecified. This is a minimal viable description at best.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the schema parameters are generic containers (body, query, headers, path_params) with no property-level documentation. The description adds only that route IDs go in path_params, filters/pagination in query, and headers in headers. This is helpful but shallow: it does not specify which route IDs, what filters are available, or how pagination is expressed. It partially compensates for the empty schema but leaves most parameter semantics undefined.

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 ('Retrieve records') and the exact endpoint ('GET /r/report_queries/problems_summary_global'), which clearly identifies the resource. However, it does not explain what 'problems_summary_global' semantically represents (e.g., global problem summary report data), so an agent must infer meaning from the endpoint name. It is distinguishable from siblings by the unique endpoint, but lacks a plain-language purpose statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling report-query tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases. The only context is the endpoint path, which implies it is a report query, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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