get_report_queries_asset_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses the HTTP method and endpoint. It does not reveal pagination behavior, authentication requirements, whether the response is a list or single item, or what 'asset users' semantically represents.

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 with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the endpoint plus parameter placement is communicated in a compact, scannable way.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the tool has zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, and the description is too thin to compensate. An agent is left without enough context on the resource, route IDs, filters, or sibling differentiation to invoke it reliably.

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, but it only maps path_params to route IDs, query to filters/pagination, and headers to required headers. It does not explain the actual parameter names, value formats, or which route IDs are valid, and it omits the body parameter entirely.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Retrieve asset users') and names the exact endpoint, making the tool's function unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_r_asset_asset_user_shares or other report queries, but the resource is specific enough to avoid major confusion.

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 gives no guidance on when to select this tool over the many sibling report query tools. It only explains where to put parameters, not the conditions or context that would lead an agent to choose this endpoint.

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