device_control_get_violations

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 discloses limits (100 max), filtering behavior (AND only), offset behavior, and license requirements, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the return format or any authentication/rate-limit implications, leaving some 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 longer than minimal but well-organized: summary, bullet points for constraints, license, endpoint, and example. Every section adds value, though the example JSON is somewhat verbose. Front-loaded with the core purpose, so the structure earns a 4.

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 no output schema and one nested parameter, the description covers critical behavior (limits, filtering logic, license) and provides an example. However, it omits any description of the response shape or fields, which would be valuable given no output schema exists. This gap leaves it short of a 4, but it is not incomplete enough for a 2.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema: it explains AND vs OR behavior, explicit offset semantics, and provides a full example request body. This clarifies how parameters interact in practice, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 verb ('Gets'), the resource ('a list of device control violations'), and the filtering capability. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'device control violations' as the unique resource, which is not present in other get-type tools.

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?

Provides clear context on usage: maximum 100 results, AND concatenation for multiple filters, zero-based offset semantics, and required license levels. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, hence not a 5, but the context sufficiently guides an agent on when this tool is appropriate.

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