get_report_queries_ad_groups_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve', implying a read operation, but doesn't mention required authentication, rate limits, or the nature of the response beyond having an output schema. The phrase 'any required request headers' is vague and leaves the caller guessing about concrete requirements.

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, compact sentence that leads with the action and endpoint. It wastes no words and is easy to scan. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting vital details, though the structure itself is efficient.

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 existence of many similar report-query tools and the generic nature of the parameters, an agent would struggle to correctly call this tool without knowing which route IDs are valid, which filters are supported, or what the response structure is (though output schema exists). The description is too generic to be complete for robust invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It does map the generic parameters to their roles: path_params for route IDs, query for filters/pagination, headers for required request headers. However, it provides no details on what specific filters, pagination options, or header keys are expected, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 clear verb ('Retrieve') and specific resource ('ad groups view'), and it identifies the exact endpoint. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling report-query views (e.g., ad_users_view, ad_ous_view), the resource name is sufficiently specific to convey its purpose.

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 tells the caller where to place parameters (path_params, query, headers) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar report-query views. There are many siblings with nearly identical names, yet no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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