get_report_queries_get_groups_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does identify this as a read-only GET retrieval and indicates pagination/filter support, which is useful. However, it omits auth requirements, whether route IDs are mandatory, error behavior, and any rate-limit or paging defaults, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 compact and front-loads the operation and endpoint before giving placement guidance. The phrasing 'Retrieve get groups details Calls' is awkward, but every clause carries routing information 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?

For a tool with four generically-typed parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema descriptions, this description is too thin: it does not say what route IDs look like, which filters or pagination keys are accepted, what headers may be required, or what the body is for. The output schema covers return values, but input-side ambiguity remains high.

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 assign meaning to three of the four parameters: route IDs to path_params, filters/pagination to query, and required headers to headers. But it gives no concrete parameter names, value formats, or explanation of the body parameter, so the 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 states a concrete operation ('Retrieve ... details') and names the exact HTTP endpoint, giving the agent a clear verb and resource. However, it does not define what 'groups' refers to or differentiate this from the many similar get_report_queries_* and get_report_queries_ad_groups_* sibling tools, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 says to place IDs, filters, and headers in certain request parts. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual triggers, so an agent cannot decide between this and similar endpoints.

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