get_r_report_queries_registry_problems_remediation

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves records via GET, which implies read-only behavior, but reveals nothing about pagination semantics, authentication requirements, rate limits, response shape, or error scenarios. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 run-on sentence that compresses the endpoint and parameter instructions into one clause. It is not excessively long, but the structure is awkward and could be clearer by separating the purpose from the call details. It is minimally adequate but not elegantly front-loaded.

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?

Amid a dense sibling set of report queries, this description does not explain what 'registry problems remediation' means, what records are returned, or what constraints exist. The agent is left without enough context to construct a correct call (e.g., whether route IDs are required, what query filter keys are accepted). The output schema exists but the description does not hint at its content, so completeness is lacking.

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, but it only vaguely maps parameters: 'route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, headers in headers'. It does not enumerate which filters, pagination parameters (limit/offset?), or required header types, leaving the agent without concrete syntax or valid values. This is a weak mitigation of the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve records' and names the exact endpoint, leaving no doubt about the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings via the unique 'registry_problems_remediation' resource, but does not explicitly contrast with closely related report queries (e.g., get_r_report_queries_problems_remediations_summary), so it falls 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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over any of the dozens of similar report-query siblings. It provides no exclusions, alternatives, or context signals (e.g., 'use this when you need registry-specific remediation records'), leaving the agent to infer applicability 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.