get_r_report_queries_remediation_plan_asset_details

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey a read-only operation via 'Retrieve' and 'GET', but it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or clarify the misleading 'route IDs' instruction. The read-only implication is present but shallow.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the action, but the first sentence is grammatically broken ('Retrieve records Calls ...'), and the second is a run-on list. It is concise but poorly structured.

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 large sibling set and vague schema, the description omits the meaning of 'asset details', which filters are supported, pagination format, and authentication specifics. The misleading path_params instruction further undermines completeness. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but invocation context is still inadequate.

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 four generic container objects with 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does assign roles: route IDs to path_params, filters/pagination to query, and headers to headers. However, the instruction to provide route IDs is likely wrong because the endpoint has no path placeholders, and every filter/header name is left unspecified, so the added semantics are partially misleading.

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 the endpoint and says 'Retrieve records', which clearly identifies a read operation for remediation plan asset details. However, 'records' is generic and it does not distinguish this from closely named siblings like get_r_report_queries_remediation_plan_asset_epss_details, 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 choose this tool over alternative report-query siblings; it only instructs how to populate path_params, query, and headers. There are no exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to guess among dozens of similarly named GET report queries.

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