get_r_report_queries_sw_problems_remediations_view

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It does convey that this is a read-only GET operation and hints at authentication via 'required request headers' and pagination via 'pagination in query' – useful behavioral signals. It does not mention response behavior, error cases, or rate limits, though an output schema exists to cover 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the endpoint is stated up front and the parameter-placement guidance is compact. The only flaw is the run-on/fragment 'Retrieve records Calls GET...' and a slight lack of flow, but nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema is present, so not describing return values is acceptable. The main gaps are the absence of context about what this particular report view contains and no guidance distinguishing it from near-identical sibling views, which is significant in a list of 200+ report tools. The generic parameter containers are given rough semantics, but concrete route/filter fields are unspecified.

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 input schema is 0% covered and its properties are generic object containers, so the extra sentence earns its keep: it tells the agent that path_params holds route IDs, query holds filters/pagination, and headers holds required request headers. However it does not name any concrete query/filter keys or the route-ID parameter, so an agent still cannot construct exact values from the description alone.

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?

States the operation ('Retrieve records') and the concrete endpoint it calls, so an agent can see this is a GET on the software-problems-remediations report view. It is not merely a name restatement, but it does not explain what the returned records represent or how it differs from the similarly named '..._assetwise' and '..._vul' siblings.

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 placement instructions (route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers) but never says when to choose this tool over the many sibling report-query tools, especially the near-named get_r_report_queries_sw_problems_remediations_view_assetwise and ..._vul. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative names.

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