get_report_queries_get_ous_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'Retrieve' and the GET method, but discloses nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, response format, or potential side effects. Basic transparency is present, but significant gaps remain.

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 short, with the endpoint front-loaded and the parameter guidance in a single follow-up sentence. It avoids verbosity, though the opening phrase 'Retrieve get ous details' is redundant with the tool name, slightly reducing structural polish. Overall, it earns a strong conciseness score.

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 having an output schema (which covers return values), the description is thin on operational context. It doesn't explain what OUs are, what 'details' include, what filters or pagination parameters are available, or which headers are required. With no annotations and a generic parameter schema, this leaves the agent guessing at critical invocation details.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining that path_params hold route IDs, query holds filters/pagination, and headers hold request headers. However, it doesn't specify which filters, pagination syntax, or which headers are required, so it only gives a high-level mapping rather than precise semantics.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves OU details and names the exact HTTP endpoint `GET /report_queries/get_ous_details`. While 'Retrieve get ous details' partly repeats the name, it adds the endpoint and parameter placement, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from similar report-query siblings like get_report_queries_ad_ous_view.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes how to structure the request (route IDs, filters, pagination, headers) but gives no context for selection, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the name alone.

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