get_report_queries_cron_jobs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly says 'Retrieve' and calls `GET`, which signals a read-only operation, and it mentions pagination in query, implying a list-style behavior. However, it does not describe authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects, only vaguely referring to 'any required request headers'.

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 two sentences and puts the main purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is a useful parameter mapping. Minor issues like 'Retrieve cron jobs Calls' with missing punctuation keep it from a 5, but it is largely concise and efficient.

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 output schema exists and covers return data, but the description still lacks essential operational context: pagination parameter names, auth headers formats, whether path_params are required or optional, and any description of error behavior. With no annotations and a schema full of generic properties, an agent would have difficulty constructing a valid call without extra knowledge.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mapping path_params to route IDs, query to filters and pagination, and headers to required headers. It adds meaning beyond the generic object types, but it does not enumerate the permitted filters, route ID formats, or what the body parameter should contain.

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 and resource: 'Retrieve cron jobs' and explicitly names the endpoint `GET /report_queries/cron_jobs`. It is unambiguous even without distinguishing against a sibling, since no other tool in the long list targets cron jobs directly.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to retrieve cron jobs for report queries. It also directs how to structure the call by mentioning path_params, query, and headers. It does not list explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria, but no obvious alternative for cron job retrieval exists among the siblings.

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