get_report_queries_asset_patches_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and parameter placement, but does not mention response format, required authentication, pagination defaults, or any side effects. For a read-only report query, this is a notable gap.

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 action and endpoint, then a compact mapping of parameters to locations. No wasted words, though it could be more structured.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere, but the description lacks essential context: no authentication requirements, no concrete filter or pagination parameter names, no route ID format, and no guidance on which sibling tools are alternatives. For a 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, this is incomplete.

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%, and the schema only defines generic containers (body, query, headers, path_params) with no property details. The description adds that path_params should contain route IDs, query should contain filters and pagination, and headers should contain required request headers, but it does not specify which IDs, which filters, or which headers. This partially compensates but leaves most semantics undefined.

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 specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('asset patches info'), and names the exact HTTP endpoint. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_r_report_queries_asset_software, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 implies usage by telling the agent where to put route IDs, filters, pagination, and headers. It does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, but the endpoint and parameter placement guidance give some context.

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