get_r_report_queries_unconfirmed_key_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the HTTP GET method, implying a safe read, but does not disclose any specific behavior, authentication requirements, or side effects. It also fails to clarify what 'unconfirmed' and 'key check' mean in operational terms.

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 with minimal redundancy and includes the endpoint and parameter mapping. However, the phrasing 'Retrieve records Calls GET ...' is awkward and slightly garbled, and the sentence packs a lot without clear logical organization.

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?

This is a GET retrieval tool with an output schema, so return values need not be described; but the description omits the purpose of the endpoint, what 'unconfirmed_key_check' means, and when to use this over the many similar report-query siblings. The description leaves the agent with enough to make a syntactically valid call but not enough to know if this is the right tool for a task.

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 provides zero descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by assigning roles: path_params for route IDs, query for filters/pagination, and headers for request headers. It does not mention the body parameter, and the notion of 'route IDs' is ambiguous, so the added semantics are useful but incomplete.

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 the verb 'Retrieve' and names the exact endpoint, which identifies the resource. However, it does not explain what an 'unconfirmed key check' is or what the records represent, and it does not differentiate this from the many sibling get_r_report_queries_* tools. The generic 'Retrieve records' only weakly distinguishes it from similar report-query tools.

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 instead of a sibling, no context for the meaning of 'unconfirmed_key_check', and no exclusions or prerequisites. It only instructs how to populate parameters, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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