get_report_queries_event_tickets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only call, and the phrase 'any required request headers' hints that authentication headers may be necessary. It does not describe pagination behavior, response format, rate limits, or any other side effects, which is a real gap for an unannotated tool.

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 purpose front-loaded and the request-construction guidance in the second sentence. The phrasing is efficient, though 'any required request headers' is a bit hedgy and the word scissors could be rearranged without losing clarity.

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 tool has four generic parameters with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description must carry more weight. It gives a high-level parameter-placement map but leaves the critical details unknown: what route IDs are, what filters are valid, what the response contains, and what headers are typically required. The output schema helps, but the caller is still guessing about parameter content.

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 map the generic schema containers to intended content: route IDs into path_params, filters/pagination into query, headers into headers. However, it remains vague about what 'route IDs' means, what filters are supported, and what the unnamed body parameter is for, so compensation is only partial.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve event tickets') and identifies the exact endpoint `GET /report_queries/event_tickets`. It does not, however, contrast with siblings like `get_r_report_queries_event_stats` or `get_report_queries_notification_tickets_view`, so the agent gets no differentiation help beyond the name.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can tell it should call this when they need event ticket data. The description gives routing guidance for where to put route IDs, filters, and headers, but there is no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit mention of alternative tools, so the selection criteria are left to inference.

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