get_report_queries_ad_gpos_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Retrieve', GET endpoint, naming-convention get_r_*), which is consistent but unstated as a safety guarantee. It does not disclose pagination behavior, response volume, or authorization requirements beyond hinting at 'any required request headers', which is vague with no detail about which headers or why.

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?

Compact overall, but the opening reads as a grammatically broken run-on: 'Retrieve ad gpos view Calls `GET /report_queries/ad_gpos_view`.' – two clauses merged without a period, which slightly muddies the front-loaded purpose. The remaining guidance is efficient and free of fluff, but the structural error costs it a point.

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 exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description does cover the mechanics of how to populate each parameter. However, for a tool whose schemas are empty generic containers, the description should explain what 'ad gpos view' represents, what the data is, and any prerequisites. Those conceptual gaps are not filled, leaving the description adequate for invocation but short on domain context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and purely generic schema parameters (anyOf {} objects with additionalProperties), the schema communicates essentially nothing. The description compensates meaningfully by assigning roles: path_params=route IDs, query=filters and pagination, headers=request headers. This does not duplicate the schema and gives agents actionable direction for each parameter group, though it remains thin on specifics like filter syntax.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a named resource ('ad gpos view'), reinforced by the explicit endpoint `GET /report_queries/ad_gpos_view`. This distinguishes it from dozens of sibling report_queries tools by naming the exact view. However, 'ad gpos' is never expanded (Active Directory Group Policy Objects), so an agent unfamiliar with the domain gets the resource name but not what it actually contains.

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?

Gives invocation mechanics (route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers) but no guidance on WHEN to use this tool vs the many sibling view tools (ad_groups_view, ad_ous_view, ad_computers_view, etc.). No alternatives are named and no selection conditions are given, so an agent must infer which of the ~40 ad/report view tools fits its task.

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