get_r_report_queries_remediation_velocity_company

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the HTTP method (GET) and the exact route, making it clear this is a read-only retrieval. It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or response handling, though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 short and front-loads the endpoint, and the second sentence efficiently conveys the parameter placement. The first sentence is a run-on ('Retrieve records Calls...') and the wording is terse to the point of vagueness, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 zero schema parameter documentation and no annotations, the description leaves critical invocation details unspecified: which route IDs are valid, which filters are supported, and which headers are required. The enormous sibling list makes the lack of use-case differentiation especially costly. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but request-side completeness is weak.

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 must compensate. It adds some meaning by mapping path_params to route IDs, query to filters/pagination, and headers to required request headers. However, it omits the body parameter entirely and gives no concrete parameter names, formats, or examples, so compensation is only partial.

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 clear action ('Retrieve records') and identifies the exact endpoint (`GET /r/report_queries/remediation_velocity_company`), which distinguishes it from the many sibling report-query tools. However, 'records' is vague and the description never explains what remediation velocity company data actually represents, so it stops short of full semantic clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling report-query tools. The description only gives generic request-shaping instructions ('Provide route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query...'), with no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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