get_report_queries_ad_password_policies

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve', implying read-only, but does not mention any side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or what the response entails. The mention of headers hints at auth needs but is vague. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 concise (two sentences) and gets to the point, but it lacks structure. The first sentence states purpose, the second is a generic call template. It could be more organized but is not verbose. It is acceptable in length but does not prioritize key details well.

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 generic schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the route IDs, specific filters, or expected header names. Although there is an output schema (not shown), the provider needs to know how to construct the request properly. The description provides only a high-level guideline, leaving many details unresolved. This is a minimal viable description but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps path_params to route IDs, query to filters/pagination, and headers to required headers, which is helpful. However, it does not specify which exact keys or formats are expected, leaving the agent to guess. It adds some value but not enough to fully define the parameters.

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 resource 'ad password policies', and includes the exact endpoint URL. This is clear and specific, but it does not distinguish this tool from the many similar report query siblings beyond the name. Still, an agent can tell it fetches AD password policies.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or conditions that would select this tool over other report queries. The description only gives generic instructions on how to pass parameters, but not when it is appropriate to use it.

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