get_report_queries_notification_tickets_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Retrieve' (implying read-only) and gives the HTTP method, but does not state whether it is safe/reversible, what response format to expect, if any authentication is required, or any limitations. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond what the name and method imply.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the main action and endpoint, with no filler. It is efficient for its length, which is appropriate for a tool that is essentially a thin wrapper around a documented REST call. However, the brevity sacrifices substance, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 (not explicitly described), the tool is a report query with complex filtering and pagination potential, yet the description gives almost no context about what the view returns, what a notification ticket is, or how to construct a meaningful request. The generic parameter placement guidance does not make the tool usable without external API documentation. It is substantially incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 provides no descriptions (coverage 0%), and the description partially compensates by mapping high-level concepts to parameters: route IDs to path_params, filters/pagination to query, headers to headers. This is a baseline level of guidance, but it does not specify the actual route IDs available, the filter fields, pagination syntax, or header requirements. It adds some semantic value over the raw schema but remains minimal.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'Retrieve notification tickets view' adds little beyond the already self-descriptive name 'get_report_queries_notification_tickets_view'. It provides the HTTP endpoint but does not clarify what a 'notification ticket' is, what data the view contains, or how it differs from dozens of sibling report-query tools. This is barely a step above a tautology.

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?

It gives only generic guidance on where to place parameters ('route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, required headers in headers'), which is standard REST mechanics. It offers no scenario for when an agent would choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or context that would help decide to use it.

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