get_r_report_queries_application_vulnerabilities

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

Annotations are absent, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses the HTTP method (GET, implying read-only) but not authentication, header requirements, pagination behavior, or response format. Minimal disclosure for a read tool.

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, front-loads the purpose and then gives calling convention. No fluff, but the endpoint URL is somewhat redundant given the name.

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?

Given the large sibling group and open-ended schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't describe return value structure (though output schema exists), doesn't differentiate from similar queries, and doesn't mention any required headers or authentication.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that path_params carry route IDs, query carries filters/pagination, headers carry required headers, which gives meaning to the open-ended schema, but lacks specifics like allowed filter fields or pagination parameters.

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 clear verb (Retrieve) and resource (application vulnerabilities records), and names the endpoint. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like the _tag or _suppressed variants, which are adjacent in the list.

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?

No guidance on when to use this over the many sibling report-query tools. It only gives calling instructions, not selection criteria.

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