get_report_queries_ad_domain_details

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the operation is a GET/retrieve call, which implies read-only behavior, and it mentions pagination and required request headers, giving a light hint about response pagination and authentication needs. However, it does not explain auth requirements, rate limits, scope of returned data, or any special constraints beyond the vague phrase 'any required request headers'.

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 deliver the purpose, the endpoint, and the parameter mapping without any filler or repeated schema information. The core meaning is front-loaded with 'Retrieve ad domain details' followed by the HTTP route and argument placement.

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?

For what looks like a generic GET wrapper, the description covers the main invocation pattern. Yet there is no explanation of what an 'ad domain detail' is, what route ID values are needed, how pagination is expressed, or when this endpoint is relevant within the huge family of AD/report query tools. The output schema fills the response shape, but operational context is still thin.

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 nearly empty: all four parameters are generic objects with additionalProperties allowed and 0% description coverage. The description compensates by mapping the parameters to their intended roles: route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, and required headers in headers. That is genuinely helpful for building a call, although the body parameter is unaddressed and no concrete key names are given.

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 starts with 'Retrieve ad domain details', a specific verb and resource, and reinforces it with the exact endpoint call GET /report_queries/ad_domain_details. This is clear enough to separate from generic operations like POST/PATCH/DELETE, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from similarly named AD report tools such as get_report_queries_ad_basic_info or get_report_queries_ad_roles_details.

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 contains only parameter-placement guidance ('route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, any required headers in headers'). It gives no conditions for when to choose this tool over the many sibling report-query tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent browsing this long sibling list has no explicit guidance about when 'ad domain details' is the right choice.

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