get_report_queries_ad_users_view

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the HTTP method (GET), which weakly implies a read operation, but discloses nothing else: no authentication expectations, no mention that it returns a paginated list, no rate-limit or data-scope context. The endpoint echo adds minimal behavioral value beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint, followed by a compact parameter-placement instruction. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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-value documentation is not required. The description covers endpoint and parameter placement adequately for a basic GET, but it is missing what an agent actually needs to call it correctly among dozens of look-alike ad_* report tools: which route IDs are valid, what filters/pagination keys are accepted, or any distinguishing data scope. Adequate but with 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to the generic anyOf schema objects: path_params should carry route IDs, query should carry filters and pagination, headers should carry request headers. However this is generic boilerplate that could apply to nearly any REST call in the sibling set, and the 'body' parameter is left entirely unexplained.

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 resource ('ad users view'), and names the exact HTTP endpoint. It is clear what the tool does, though among the large cluster of similar get_report_queries_ad_* siblings (ad_roles, ad_users_view, ad_groups_view, etc.) it does nothing to differentiate itself from them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many comparable ad_* report query tools, and no exclusions or alternatives. The only guidance given is parameter placement ('route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query'), which is an invocation instruction, not a usage-selection guideline.

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