get_r_report_queries_resolved_remediation

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-style read operation (via the endpoint), but it does not describe pagination behavior, response shape, required authentication, or any side effects. The description adds almost nothing beyond what the endpoint name and HTTP verb already imply.

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 action, but it wastes its first sentence on a tautological 'Retrieve records' followed by the endpoint. The second sentence is the only useful part. It is concise but not well-structured for an agent that needs to understand the tool.

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 the opaque name, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what resolved remediation records are, what route IDs are needed, what query filters are supported, or what the output schema contains. An agent would have to guess or inspect the endpoint documentation to use this correctly.

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 (body, query, headers, path_params) with no property-level documentation. The description says to put route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and headers in headers, which is mildly helpful, but it does not specify which route IDs, what filters are available, or what the body is for. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 begins with 'Retrieve records' which is a generic verb, then immediately restates the endpoint path. It does not explain what 'resolved_remediation' means, what kind of records are returned, or how this differs from the many sibling report_queries tools. The name itself is the only real signal of purpose.

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 similar report_queries siblings (e.g., get_r_report_queries_remediation_plan_by_company, get_r_report_queries_get_remediation, get_r_report_queries_remediate_records). It only states mechanics (path_params, query, headers) without any context about use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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