get_r_asset_asset_security_report_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the HTTP method (GET) and 'Retrieve' wording implies read-only, plus useful parameter-placement behavior. However, it says nothing about pagination defaults/limits, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior for a report endpoint.

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?

Two sentences with purpose front-loaded and no filler; the parameter-routing guidance earns its place. Minor punctuation flaw ('data Calls' missing a period) slightly mars readability, but overall it is compact and direct.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape documentation is covered elsewhere. But with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves notable gaps: it doesn't clarify what the security report data contains, when body would be needed, which filters are valid, or how pagination is expressed. Adequate as a generic REST wrapper description, thin for a report-data tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it assigns roles to path_params (route IDs), query (filters and pagination), and headers (required request headers). However, the body parameter is left completely unexplained, and no concrete filter or pagination key names are given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve asset security report data') and names the exact HTTP endpoint (GET /r/asset/asset_security_report_data). The endpoint path distinguishes it at a technical level from siblings like get_r_asset_asset_security_report_data_id and get_r_report_queries_asset_security_report_data, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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 no when-to-use guidance. The description explains the calling convention (route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers) but never says when to select this tool over the _id variant or the report_queries variant, and offers no exclusions or alternatives.

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