get_r_asset_suppress_vulnerability_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a GET/read operation but offers no further detail: no mention of required authentication, possible error conditions, response format, or semantics of a 'suppressed vulnerability'. It also uses the ambiguous phrase 'route IDs' without explaining which IDs are needed or how they map to the `{id}` path parameter.

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 concise at two brief sentences and front-loads the core action and endpoint. Every sentence provides operational instruction without fluff. The only structural issue is the typo 'suppres' and the slightly run-on first sentence, but overall it is efficiently packed.

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 annotationsley and an output schema that is present but unspecified, the description leaves out critical invocation details. It does not name the required path parameter (presumably 'id'), does not clarify whether body should be null, and gives no indication of what the response will contain. While the endpoint suggests a simple fetch, an agent would need to infer too much about the exact parameter key and expected value structure.

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. It does add value by mapping the generic schema parameters to roles: 'route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, headers in headers'. This partially clarifies the opaque `additionalProperties` schemas. However, it omits the `body` parameter entirely and gives no concrete parameter names or formats, leaving the agent to guess what keys are expected.

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 states a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('suppres vulnerability'), reinforced by the explicit endpoint `GET /r/asset/suppress_vulnerability/{id}`. The path makes it obvious this targets a single suppressed vulnerability by ID, distinguishing it from the list-style sibling `get_r_asset_suppress_vulnerability`. The typo 'suppres' is minor and does not obscure meaning.

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 provides generic request-structuring advice ('Provide route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that the list version exists, that delete/patch tools modify the same resource, or any conditions under which one should prefer a different tool. No exclusions or situational context is provided.

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