get_r_report_queries_suppressed_problems

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 the HTTP method (GET) and that it retrieves records, but does not mention pagination behavior, response format, required authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read-only report query, the lack of behavioral context beyond 'Retrieve records' is a notable gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the endpoint and then maps the generic schema parameters to their intended usage. It is compact and every clause adds some information, though the phrasing is slightly awkward ('Retrieve records Calls').

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 tool has an output schema, the return value may be covered there, but the description still lacks essential context: what 'suppressed problems' means, what route IDs are valid, what filters/pagination parameters are supported, and how this tool relates to the many sibling report query tools. The generic schema with 0% coverage leaves the agent with too much ambiguity.

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 adds minimal value by saying route IDs go in path_params, filters/pagination in query, and headers in headers, but it does not explain what filters are available, what route IDs are expected, or what the response contains. It partially compensates but leaves most semantics undocumented.

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 specific verb ('Retrieve records') and the exact endpoint ('GET /r/report_queries/suppressed_problems'), which clearly identifies the resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_r_report_queries_suppress_vulnerability_problems, but the endpoint path and 'suppressed problems' naming make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 alternatives. It only explains how to structure the request (path_params, query, headers). There is no mention of when suppressed problems are relevant, how this differs from other report query tools, or any exclusions.

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