assets_get_external_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the maximum result limit of 500, the required license tiers, and provides the exact REST endpoint. It also shows a request example with filters. However, it does not disclose pagination handling, error cases, or response structure, so it is strong but not complete.

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 front-loaded with a clear title and one-sentence summary. It includes relevant details (max limit, license, endpoint, example) without excessive fluff. However, the license line is redundant and awkwardly phrased ('Cortex XSIAM Premium or Cortex XSIAM Enterprise, Cortex XSIAM Enterprise Plus or Cortex XSIAM Premium'), which detracts slightly from conciseness.

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 tool has a nested request_data object with multiple sub-fields, and no output schema. The description provides an example and mentions max limit, but lacks an overview of pagination using search_from/search_to, the performance impact of vulnerability_test_results, or the shape of the response. The schema mitigates some gaps, but the description itself is not fully complete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in varied scenarios.

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 input schema has rich descriptions for nested fields like filters and sort, but the top-level request_data parameter has no description (schema description coverage 0%). The description provides an example request body that shows the filter structure, adding some meaning beyond the schema, but it does not explain sort, search_to/from, or vulnerability_test_results. The example partially compensates, but significant gaps remain.

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 'Get a complete or filtered list of all your external services', which uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (external services). This differentiates it from siblings like assets_get_external_service (singular) and assets_get_external_website, as it targets the full collection. The addition of the endpoint path and license requirement further ties it to a specific asset management operation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to retrieve all external services, with optional filtering. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the example and wording imply its role as a listing endpoint. The license requirement is a useful prerequisite. It stops short of naming sibling tools or exclusions, so it does not earn a 5.

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