get_report_queries_ad_roles_details

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a GET retrieve operation and that query parameters control filters and pagination, which implies a non-mutating read. However, it doesn't state authentication expectations, rate limits, or pagination defaults beyond 'pagination in query'.

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 put the purpose and endpoint first and the parameter distribution second, with no filler or repetition of schema metadata. This is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 absence of annotations, the description covers the call shape (method, path, parameter containers) and an output schema exists to document returns. It still lacks when-to-use guidance among similar ad_roles endpoints and any specifics on query keys or header names, so an agent may need external knowledge for a fully correct call.

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% and all four parameters are untyped open containers, so the description is the only semantic source. It correctly maps path_params to route IDs, query to filters and pagination, and headers to required headers, which is valuable. It leaves exact filter and header names unspecified, so it doesn't fully compensate for the empty schema.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve ad roles details') and names the exact REST endpoint, so an agent knows what the tool does. It doesn't contrast with closely named siblings such as get_report_queries_ad_roles or get_report_queries_ad_roles_member, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 statement about when to choose this endpoint over the many get_r_report_queries_ad_* siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. The only guidance is how to route parameters, which is invocation mechanics rather than use-case selection.

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