get_r_report_queries_registry_problems_summary

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that this is a read operation ('Retrieve records' / 'GET') and that pagination/filtering live in query parameters. However, it does not mention auth requirements, headers needed, or response behavior beyond the existence of an output schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The resource and operation are front-loaded, and the parameter routing guidance is compact and directly actionable.

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?

For a straightforward GET with an output schema, the description provides the essential invocation pattern, so an agent could likely make the call. But in a large family of report-query tools, it fails to convey the domain meaning of the data or what makes this summary distinct, leaving tool selection under-specified.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds useful roles for path_params, query, and headers, but it is vague about exact keys and values, does not explain 'route IDs' clearly for an endpoint that appears fixed, and never addresses the body 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 names a specific resource and HTTP verb ('GET /r/report_queries/registry_problems_summary') and says it retrieves records, so the core action is clear. It does not explain what a 'registry problems summary' is or distinguish it from the many similar report-query siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 siblings like get_r_report_queries_problems_summary or get_r_report_queries_registry_problems_remediation. It only explains how to structure the call (path_params, query, headers), not when this report is the right choice.

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